Introduction to “The Copper Revolution”

Here is the text of the introduction to my book, “The Copper Revolution: Healing with Minerals”.

I believe copper is the most important nutrient, the least popular, the most needed, the most slandered, the most misunderstood, and the cheapest of all minerals.
“The National Institutes of Health (US Government) did a study showing that 81 percent of people have less than two-thirds of the recommended daily allowance of copper (of 0.9 mg).”
I have no monetary bias, because copper is a micronutrient, and therefore, copper supplements are extremely cheap, almost free. You can double your copper intake for about 2.4 cents worth of copper sulfate that will last you about 3 years. That’s not 2.4 cents a day. That 2.4 cents worth of copper will make a small 2 oz. dropper bottle containing 1180 mg of copper that will last for 1180 days, if you take minimum amounts. If you take a lot, that might last 1-2 months. If you buy any supplement in the store, it’s typically $10 for a month at the cheapest, and you are paying for convenience, labeling, bottling, and shipping.
So copper is 2.4 cents for three years. Any other supplement: $360 for three years. It’s not even close.
Copper is far far cheaper than iodine, and is probably far more important. And I just love iodine!
Here’s how to make your own copper sulfate supplement. Buy pure copper sulfate blue salt crystals, (they sell it at, or anywhere that copper sulfate is sold) at 99.9% purity. That’s as pure as things get. It is both pharma and food-grade, but they will not likely use such words. It is sold in 1 pound, 5 pound, and 10 pound bags, etc. A 1 pound bag costs $5 and should last you 10 to 20 years if you take even a lot of it.
To make a solution, of 1 mg of contained copper per liquid drop: Measure out 3.25 x 1/8 teaspoons of copper sulfate crystals into a 2 oz. bottle. Or 1 teaspoon of copper sulfate per 5 oz. water. Or… 1 cup is 8 oz. of water, so a third useful ratio is: 1 teaspoon and 5/8ths of a teaspoon of copper sulfate per cup of distilled water.
The point here is that this book is not advocating a way for me to get rich selling copper supplements. I have been accused of that. I do not even sell copper supplements. The point is that this information is purely for your own health and well-being, with no monetary conflicts of interest attached.
Copper deficiency appears to be implicated in nearly all of the most common causes of death! Increasing copper intake will dramatically improve a wide variety of health issues, increasing the quality of life. In particular, many of the things that copper does in the body appear to keep us both looking and feeling younger. Increased collagen eliminates wrinkles. Increased dopamine and melanin helps to increase the color of the hair, reducing grey hair. Increased collagen strengthens bones, joints, muscles, and eliminates many body aches, arthritis, and other such connective tissue disorders. Increased collagen eliminates many other signs of aging: such as aneurysms, and heart conditions. Increased ATP boosts energy. Copper kills germs, boosts immunity, and increases red and white blood cells.
Copper also helps a wide array of diseases, discomforts, problems, and ailments that are not generally listed as “causes of death”. These issues are arthritis and other connective tissue disorders such as hemorrhoids and hernias; Alzheimer’s, MS, & other nerve and brain disorders; bone, muscle, skin, circulation, heart, kidney, liver disorders; hormone, neurotransmitter disorders, cholesterol disorders, bleeding disorders, ulcers, heavy periods, anemia, and adrenal fatigue. And as copper helps to detox fluoride, too, then copper helps fix a list of 180 symptoms associated with fluoride toxicity, including cancer. It might be a shorter list to consider what body parts do not need copper, but as of yet, I have not found any. After all, all body parts need access to the blood and nerves, at the least, including hair follicles and teeth, and yes, copper is great for the hair and teeth. Every cell in the human body needs copper for a wide array of cellular reasons: for strong cell walls and a stronger cell wall of the nucleus, for the DNA, and for the mitochondria to make ATP for energy.
Because copper bonds to fluoride, it is one of the most widely slandered supplements and nutrients out there. The reason for this is that about 50% of the population of the USA still drinks tap water, which contains fluoride. I also sometimes do, whenever I’m in restaurants or buy a drink made with tap water. Fluoride in the water is an acid, and it binds to copper in the pipes and strips the copper from the pipes. And there are many other sources of fluoride that people don’t know about. Fluoride disrupts copper metabolism. The average person has 2600 mg of fluoride in their body and only 77 mg of copper. Fluoride lowers ceruloplasmin, a key copper enzyme in the blood. This tends to cause copper to accumulate in the tissues, yet the person tends towards copper deficiency because the copper cannot be properly transported to where it needs to go. Copper is also one of the least championed supplements out there, as I can find no books making copper supplements their primary subject, except for Morley Robbin’s book which came out in October, 2012, which I have still not yet read.
Humans are both naturally resistant to and skeptical of new information, and yet it is exactly the unknown truths that are typically the most valuable of information to learn. Humans also have trouble with confirmation bias, in that we tend to look for information that confirms what we already think we know, or may have heard. So if we hear copper is toxic, and then think copper is toxic… we have a bias. It is therefore very difficult to unlearn the slander about copper because that would be information that does not confirm what we have already heard about, remember, and think we know. Furthermore, humans do not like to have to admit they have been deceived by a wide variety of people who claim copper is toxic, some of whom may have been mistaken.
I am drawn to study things that will benefit humanity, and things that are little known. For similar reasons, I got into the study of Bible Prophecy. I wanted to know what we were supposed to know but is little known about Bible Prophecy. Next, I was drawn into the study of gold and silver as money. They were used as money by most of humanity for thousands of years, but not so much in our era.
When I began to study about human health, I was initially drawn to study foods and herbs. I like herbs, and many are said to be high in minerals. But with so many foods and herbs, I was drawn to study vitamins and minerals and their corresponding deficiency symptoms. Next, as I discovered that minerals improved my own health more than vitamins or herbs, I shifted my focus more towards the minerals, especially the micro minerals like copper, zinc, iodine, boron, and many others. For a long while, I simply accepted the “upper human limit” on copper of 10 mg, and took from 3-9 mg of copper, thinking my research on copper and application of that research was complete. Eventually, I realized that while I had fixed a few of my low copper symptoms from that mild level of supplementation, I realized that I had plenty more low copper symptoms, such as joint pain, and low energy, and I had to wonder why copper caused me nausea.
Next, I finally did my full due diligence to look into how that “tolerable upper human limit” on copper was established, and upon what evidence it was based. It was arbitrary, and based on nearly nothing, or upon very bad and scant evidence, and done for political purposes of establishing minimums necessary for prisoners. “A correctional facility must prove menus being served meet the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of the National Academy of Sciences;”
The RDA for copper was entirely shoddy and unscientific, with no testing done, with a disclaimer that further testing and study was required, which was never done in the last 28 years.
Next, I had a breakthrough moment when I went above the “tolerable upper human limit,” and took more copper and I discovered significant improvements in my own health, ranging from extra energy, extra brainpower, less sweating, less muscle pain in my workouts, and difficulty even achieving delayed onset muscle soreness from the most intense workouts I could imagine, and so I knew I had discovered something very important.
I had another big breakthrough moment when I learned to make my own liquid copper sulfate solution, which was ridiculously cheap, which I could apply to the skin to get even more copper and bypass the digestive system and nausea.
Next, I realized that there are no people really championing copper as a supplement, no books on the subject, (except now Morley’s) and that many of my favorite health gurus have also overlooked doing any deep study into copper. I realized I might be on to something even more important. Finally, after three years of research, I realized quite a few of the reasons why copper is slandered, and yet so desperately needed by nearly every system in the body, and that most people die from things that could be caused, in part, by copper deficiency, and that copper is like the fountain of youth, and I realized I really had something very important to share and that I must write “the book on copper”.
People, and academic researchers, seem to believe that “truth will propagate on its own”. Yes. Sort of. But it does not. The truth is that truth has to propagate through people. By itself, without people, a truth may remain hidden. The corollary of that is that truth needs people to champion that truth, and truth needs people to share that truth, and they need to figure out ways to reach people in ways that are profitable and so their reach can grow. We do not live in an era where truths are generally well accepted and well shared. We live in an age of censorship and media lies.
Also, people generally do not read academic journals that are filled with technical jargon that hides the truth from casual readers, or even me, who may read casually. I just read that a-tocopherol can help protect against copper toxicity in rats. But what is a-tocopherol? It’s Vitamin E. Well, why didn’t he say that? Because there are many forms of Vitamin E, and a-tocopherol is only one such form.
Furthermore, researchers are human. As such, they make many assumptions and value statements that seem wildly off base, just like any other typical human may make. For example, I’m reading that sheep cannot handle very much copper, and become “copper toxic” at “low” intakes. Ok. That may well imply that humans cannot tolerate much copper either, right? But, well, ok, but what is low? Naturally, the human range, since it’s said to be from 1 to 10 mg, I would assume a “low” intake for the sheep would be 2-3 mg, or even lower than the natural human diet of 1 mg. My assumption was wrong in this case, as I was misled by the researcher using the word “low”. Here are the actual numbers, including that word “low”: “In contrast, copper toxicosis in sheep develops as a two-stage process, even at relatively low dietary copper intakes of <25 mg/kg (2).” From
Ok. Well, how much food/water does a human consume? 2.5 kg per day. Ok. 25 mg of copper x 2.5 is 62.5 mg. Wow. That’s 6.25 times higher than the upper human limit of 10 mg for a human! That’s “low”? Compared to what? Other animals?
Am I wrong or is the researcher wrong for using the word “low”? That could be low compared to the pig or the rat, which can tolerate much higher levels of copper. But the “low” sheep tolerance is also over 500% higher than what a human can supposedly tolerate. So it is very easy for researchers to accidentally hide or distort truth, which then gets further distorted by other researchers who quote it, by the use of imprecise grammar, and accidentally poor value judgments added into their text. For example, people will say that humans might be like sheep, and cannot tolerate “low” copper. And that would be junk science, or even not scientific at all.
Research on copper is limited in many ways. Copper has many interaction effects on many other minerals, and it appears that these interaction effects are curvy curves. For example, at very low levels of calcium, copper is not absorbed as well. Then, with some levels of calcium, calcium helps a body absorb and utilize copper better than without enough calcium. And in turn, copper helps the body put calcium into the bones, so they work well together. But at higher levels of calcium, calcium can block copper, preventing its absorption. What is very low, what is some, and what is high? Neither I nor the researchers are yet very clear on that. I assume low calcium is in the 100 mg to 300 mg range, and that a high range is 500 to 5000 mg of calcium. But that is my educated guess. The point is that the researchers need to test copper along a wide array of both other minerals, and also other vitamins, and also at varying amounts of those vitamins and minerals. As one man put it, why bother studying or taking any, because these interaction effects will not be fully known for the next several hundred years. On the other hand, we do not need to fully know everything about how exercise benefits us before getting the benefits of exercise.
There are two other ways copper research is hindered. Today, it has become unethical to induce copper deficiency to see what it would do. That would harm people. That didn’t seem to stop researchers in the ’60s, but today, studies like this would not be approved. Furthermore, the US government has set the “tolerable upper human limit” on copper at 10 mg. While they do not ban studies above this level, actual studies on what copper does above this level are also very rare. I have found only one study mentioning people taking 20 mg for short periods.
Furthermore, it’s not like we should not take minerals due to “risk”, because risk is everywhere. There is a clear risk of copper deficiency. In fact, most people in America may be suffering from copper deficiency. By most people, I mean probably well over 80% to 90%, and perhaps nearly everyone, such as over 99.99% of people, which means, yes, you.
We just need to know enough to take reasonable, well-protected action. Not taking any action to supplement copper is also a choice and a decision. Perhaps it is the default decision, but it’s a choice, nevertheless.
I agree and understand that over-supplementation of copper can be bad, just as too much exercise can be bad and lead to overtraining, exhaustion, lack of recovery, an injury. Ironically, it may well be that one of the biggest dangers of too much exercise is copper depletion! But how much is too much if the government’s tolerable upper limit is not based on reasonable science? What is a better realistic level?
Copper deficiency is also a risk and a problem. Having suffered copper deficiency, and having found the solution by taking ultra-cheap copper… Well, let me say that copper deficiency symptoms like bleeding, sweating heavily, joint pain, muscle pain, neuropathy, brain fog, involuntary napping, low energy, depression, fainting, and many other things… are not things I’m willing to tolerate when there is no reason for it, and when the solution is obvious and cheap. So I take copper.
I am most interested to learn what are the optimal levels of copper to take? Especially for athletes. Nearly nobody has ever written on this or even attempted to establish an answer, not according to my extensive and repeated research. So, in this, perhaps I am paving the way. There may be a few other people similarly seeking to establish the answer to this same question. I have just not yet found them, or they are just not publishing things I’m able to find and read, and I read on this subject regularly. For fun.For example, I just tried again. I found this: The Canadian Academy of Sports Nutrition. They repeat and quote the same USA old upper limit of 10 mg of copper. Come on Canada, do your own research!
For me, because I exercise a lot, and take plenty of other copper antagonizing vitamins and minerals, I’m finding that 10 mg of copper is a minimum for me, and eventually still results in some deficiency symptoms. I have had good results with 20 mg, which may be optimal for me. I had a few months of labored breathing at levels from 30 mg to 70 mg, when I first pushed it to those levels. Now, I no longer have that problem. I don’t know why. Was it detox? Was I taking too many other copper-blocking supplements just to be safe, and that was continuing to block my copper? Was it dehydration from getting too thirsty? Was it something I just had to get past? On the other hand, optimal levels of copper help me to sprint and help me retain water so I can work out for an hour and not need to take a drink. If I’m able to sprint, how bad could my lungs be? When I was copper-deficient for most of my life, I had to drink water all the time when weightlifting. I believe too much copper can also deplete vitamin C, deplete Zinc, deplete niacin, and maybe deplete several of the B vitamins. Too much copper can deplete or block iron absorption, and without iron, anemia develops, which has a symptom of getting out of breath, exhausted easily, and tired easily. But copper also fixes anemia, and there is such a thing as “copper deficiency anemia” because copper is needed to help turn iron into red blood cells in the bone marrow.
Does copper deplete iron? Deplete is perhaps the wrong word. “Utilize” might be better, as nutrients are like building blocks. The body seems to use what is available to engage in the functions that it wants to do. If the body needs both Copper and Vitamin C to do something, and if you take more copper and less vitamin C, the body may well run out of vitamin C faster than it otherwise normally would do so.
Don’t get discouraged if you read that there is an antagonism or depletion effect of copper and another vitamin or mineral. There is usually a synergy as well. The synergy can lead to the depletion by way of the effect of looking at what building blocks are available.
You need to critically evaluate this book and think as you read.
As you read this book, you will become aware of various controversies around copper. Furthermore, scientific studies do not always agree with each other. There are three primary things to evaluate. 1. What were the actual findings of the study? 2. What were the conclusions of the researchers? 3. What is the veracity and reasonableness of my analysis?
Those are all three entirely separate things to evaluate. And none of those three things are “facts”.
Point 1 is the closest to being factual, but even study findings can be faked. So the question becomes, were the study findings repeated by several other research teams? 2. The conclusions are not always backed up by the data, but maybe only appear to be backed up by the data. The data can also mean many other possible things that might contradict the conclusions of the researchers. 3. Is my analysis sound? Did I take into account more data than the researchers? Could I be wrong? I can be wrong, no matter how persuasive I may sound. I am not wrong merely because I disagree with others or the common opinions of the day.
Other things to take into account. What might be the bias of the researchers when they reach their conclusions? What might be my bias?
In many cases, I am making my analysis as I go. But as I go, I learn more, and my thoughts in my analysis may change. That’s what you would expect in the learning process. Writing a book is both a teaching process and a learning process. I continue to learn as I try to make the book more thorough and complete. This is a big subject. I may not remember everything in the book, although I am expected to know everything in the book that I am writing. Pay attention. Note: do I contradict myself? If so, where did I go wrong, and why? What would be the reasons, or possible reasons?
In one article on copper I read, the authors did contradict themselves. They claimed copper is inflammatory. Then, they said copper was an anti-inflammatory. Theyappeared to not remember or reference their earlier claim. Here is the article:
The Copper Dilemma
First statement: “It seems that copper may heighten the inflammatory response through oxidation that may lead to atherosclerosis.”
Second statement: “A deficiency may also explain why copper, which is an anti-inflammatory agent, is useful in the treatment of (RA) and other inflammatory conditions. A study showed that copper supplementation surpassed aspirin in terms of anti-inflammatory action B boasting 130% the activity of cortisone.”
Here is another common subject of disagreement about copper. Is copper an oxidant or an antioxidant? Both claims are made! Is it both? What is the typical net effect? Who says which claim? What are the claims based upon? Is the science sound?
One study said that subjects who took 10 mg of copper excreted nearly all of it. The conclusion was that the body wants to excrete copper because the body treats it as a toxin. Is that the only possible conclusion? I can think of many other possible conclusions because I have read so much about copper. For example, maybe the study was too short for the copper to accumulate. Maybe the study participants had trouble absorbing the copper. Maybe the study participants did not have enough time to make more ceruloplasmin, a copper transport protein, or other copper transport proteins. Maybe the study participants did not take enough calcium or potassium which have been shown to increase the absorption of copper. Maybe the study participants were toxic with other substances, that the copper that they took then was bound to, and excretion of the copper, bound to the toxins, was the body’s attempt to get rid of the other poisons, and copper is a vital detox nutrient. Maybe the study participants were taking too many of the 40 or more other substances that block or lower copper, such as nutrients, foods, and drugs? Maybe 10 mg was flat out not enough copper to help the study participants to absorb copper. Maybe there are many other possible explanations.
Before I wrote this book, I knew that was a particular mystery that I wanted to try to explore. As I am writing this book, I was able to consider many possible alternatives. Maybe all of the possible alternatives are partly correct. Maybe some are more correct than others. And maybe there are other alternatives as well.
The final point is that at first reading, you will likely not know enough about copper to know how to fully evaluate my analysis. Upon a second, and maybe third reading of this book, you might start to find holes in my analysis, or you might come to a better analysis of the data, and find yourself compelled to write an article or two yourself. Upon taking copper, and possibly iodine as well, and getting the brain boost from taking them, you may start to become a bigger thinker, with an improved memory.
For many people, I feel compelled to say, “inventing a false accusation” does not count as analysis. I don’t consider myself to be writing for those kinds of people who don’t know the first thing about the entire point of arguments, which is to try to come closer and closer to the truth of things. Pointing out others who disagree with me also does not count as a rebuttal, nor as an analysis. Analysis consists of harmonizing many points of data, and evaluating the truthfulness of those data points both individually, and as a whole. A rebuttal consists of proving why something could not possibly be right. Analysis also does not consist of character assassinations.
And the final and biggest controversy about copper. Is it toxic? At what level? 2 mg? 10 mg? 188 mg? 1000 mg? 10,000 mg? 20,000 mg? 250,000 mg? Why is there such a large range? And how is one man reported to survive up to 250,000 mg of copper? That’s 250 grams! That’s far more than the reported 10 grams of iodine that historical high iodine advocates took. Is copper toxic at all? Or is something else going on? Is it merely detox reactions? Induced deficiencies? Can too much copper at once end up overburdening the detox organs with too much of many other toxins mobilized at once? How can a substance suddenly turn toxic over a very narrow range? Is that even possible? Is there any evidence for that?
There are other things to pay attention to about studies on copper.Is the study on animals or humans? Animal studies are not always applicable to humans. But often, they are. Often, given a level of copper that animals can “tolerate”, they will assume that humans can only tolerate 1/100th of the level. Why is that assumption made? Just for safety? Again, what about the danger of deficiency?
Is the study a correlation study, or an intervention study? Correlation does not mean causation. In a correlation study, they will attempt to measure copper in the blood, or in body tissues, and then look for correlations for disease. (They rarely attempt to study “health”.) In an intervention study, they will give study participants actual copper supplements over a period of time. These are often of short duration to save time and money, and thus, have limited application for what copper supplements will do long term. And I have never seen any study measure more than 20 mg among study participants. Almost everything above that level is only case study reports.
Another thing to consider is how many study participants were involved. Typically, the lower the number, the less useful the findings.
There seems to be a catch-22 in studies about copper. They don’t want to study people taking larger amounts of copper, say, over 10-20 mg, because, in theory, they assume those amounts are dangerous. But don’t they need to do such studies to actually determine if copper is dangerous?Then there are toxicology studies. Most of the toxicological data is on instances of poisoning. Most poisonings happen around 20,000 mg. Those are the levels at which people start to die. But this showcases a wide range of between 20 mg to 20,000 mg where there is just almost no data. That’s a huge range.
Finally, averages are not ideals. The “average” person might not be healthy. It is said that 70% of the American population has taken at least one prescription drug in the last year. They would not do that unless they had health problems. What if 70% of people are copper deficient? What if it’s 99%? Or 99.9% deficient? Then the “average” person’s copper levels would indicate copper deficiency. When you go get tested, they compare you to the average. Is that even useful?
What if the average IQ is 100. Well, it is, by definition. Does this mean a person with 130 IQ, has excess brainpower and needs to drink a lot of beer to become more normal? Averages are not always ideal. Look at athletes. They have above-average levels of strength and health, too, typically. It is rare to see an athlete at the top of their game get cancer.
I personally have taken between 10 mg to 30 mg to 70 mg of copper over the last four years. I am at the very least, a data point. My health has never been better.
As I finish writing this book, I realize I did something slightly unfair. I judged government studies done in 1993 based on what I can find today in 2021. But 1993 is the era before the internet. Of course, I have no choice but to judge them based on today’s knowledge. But they did not have the benefit of today’s knowledge. On the other hand, they can update their data at any time, and they acknowledged that they should do so “in the future” and they never did. So, if I prove them wrong, which I will do, the fault is with them.