Our statement on the recent negative article

At Somavedic Technologies, we care about the health and wellness of the Somavedic family, whether they be employees, customers, vendors, or our influencers. We've achieved an outstanding reputation and a great user experience with our products over the years. We make every effort to deal with customer issues quickly and transparently and provide our customers with above-average industry guarantees and warranties. No other company in the health & wellness space does so with standard services like the 60-day money-back guarantee and a 5-year warranty.

Having said this, a recent negative article has attempted to damage our reputation and question the benefits of our products. This is also the reason why I'm writing this statement. It's to shed light on some things and correct some misleading opinions and biases, as there are plenty of them. As the company's CEO, I read customer feedback almost daily. This was, in the end, what inspired me to join Somavedic Technologies. The user’s experiences and stories I’ve heard and then experienced myself. That’s why I find it very disappointing when someone mistakes biased opinions for facts and tries to go into lengthy explanations about why Somavedic should not work or is not working. I'll start with a brief background on myself and Ivan (the inventor of Somavedic) to provide a better perspective on WHY we are on this journey and mission. In the following paragraphs, I will share personal and factual information.

A short history of Somavedic

Necessity is the mother of invention, and this is also the story of Somavedic. As some of you may know, the very first Somavedic was invented by Ivan Rybjansky on April 1st, 2011. This was after more than 4 years of non-stop experiments and trial & error. Inspired to find a cure for his debilitating health issues with lupus and pancreatic illness, he applied his experiences with an ancient holistic approach to wellness with modern-day technology. After these years, he was eventually successful. These are the first sentiments after the Somavedic was born.

"If this would help only one single person, then the effort was worth it."

In 2011, Ivan started to raise awareness of the adverse effects of EMFs and geopathic zones and that they are, in some cases, the root cause of our problems. Can you imagine doing something like this publicly 11 years ago? To this day, the awareness about EMFs is very low in the general public, and in the mainstream, it's considered almost a conspiracy theory. Despite the controversial topic, he continued with his mission and spread awareness.

My story is very similar. I also struggled with health issues, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and brain fog. Doctors could not help me except by prescription medication, which they told me I would need to take for the rest of my life. I was desperate to find the root cause of my problems. After starting my healing journey and research and dramatically changing my lifestyle and diet, I finally found "peace" and thriving health after long 2 years.

After this transformative experience, I had a strong calling to help people on their healing journeys. At that time, I had no specific idea of how to do it; I just knew it was something I’d like to do. A few years later (early 2018), I encountered Somavedic and listened to some customer experiences, and shortly after, I had my first positive experience with it. It was when I brought it to our office. The energy levels towards the end of the day when I was leaving were much higher than on previous days and weeks. The only thing that changed was the presence of a Somavedic device; everything else remained the same. I immediately knew, "This is it; this is what I want to do and how I'd like to help people."

I joined the company in late 2018. My personal experience and vision of the company have continued to fuel and fulfill me since then. Even back then, Somavedic Technologies provided a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 5-year warranty (if it breaks down, you'll get a new one) on their products. For me, this customer-centric approach was an additional reason to join.

I share this with you to bring a closer perspective on our intentions and WHY we do what we do. Still, I find some people very hard to understand regarding their motivations and intentions. Why would anybody spend any time (not to mention months) trying to show that our studies not only lack a "real scientific approach" but that Somavedic is supposedly even harmful.

"Why would anybody spend so much time and energy on this task when every one of customers around the world can test out the Somavedic in their environment for 2 months and decide if it's worth the investment or not?"

Safety and positive product experience are our top priorities. That’s why we have this policy. Who are we or someone else to comment on or judge somebody's personal experience? We leave it up to our customers to decide.

Now to the factual information

We embrace competition, reviews, and constructive criticism. It motivates us to think about our products and services from a different perspective. It's different, though, when someone is "reviewing" a product and has already decided on the narrative of the review. Not to mention that in the same article, an alternative product, improving the “reviewed” one, is offered. Creating a "problem" and then offering a solution. How biased or non-biased do you think the whole "review" will be? As you will see in the following paragraphs, the stage is set already, and it will only try to re-confirm its predetermined narrative.

Something to consider

The person who recently wrote the article about Somavedic claims to be an “Emmy, Gabriel, and Gold Mic Award-winning investigative journalist.” To increase the importance and scientific weight of her “review” she chose to collaborate with Dr. George Carlo. We have found multiple sources and documents questioning Dr. Carlo's methods and/or motivations. They may or may not be accurate, but CMD is well known for its groundbreaking investigation and awards. Nonetheless, we believe that the existence of such statements is not only noteworthy but quite alarming.

Here's a more detailed look at what the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) (a nationally-recognized watchdog that leads in-depth, award-winning investigation’s into the corruption that undermines our democracy, environment, and economic prosperity) is saying about Dr. George Carlo.

The above-mentioned type of information is what concerns me and makes me wonder: What kind of award-winning investigative journalist would want to collaborate with Dr. George Carlo? What is the real intention behind it? It looks like planting a "seed of mistrust" on our scientific research which is not to the liking of the mentioned reviewers. Only reconfirming the predetermined narrative of the article.

Studies

One of the experts invited to comment in the article on our studies was Prof. Olle Johannson. I have a lot of respect for Prof. Johannson. I like his work and presentations on public health and EMFs. A concise comment from my side would be that I know we don’t have “bullet-proof” studies or double-blinded clinical trials, but we never claimed we do. What we do have are studies done by 3rd party labs confirming and explaining what users of our products are experiencing. Despite his extensive experience, Prof. Olle Johannson (who has no experience with our device) could not prove that our product is not working.

Our approach with Somavedic testing was a bit different from the beginning. We had the product first, then the positive user experience (mainly improved sleep, more energy, fewer headaches, etc.), and then we tried to measure and understand what is going on from a biological perspective when users are experiencing this. There are almost endless studies and tests we could do, but thanks to the user feedback, we narrowed it down to a few we should do. Each study was done independently by a 3rd party laboratory. Of course, until we have double-blinded studies (in the plan for this year), there will always be someone questioning them. That does not mean they are false or do not show the actual effect on our bodies. So far we have published and shared every study done on Somavedic, regardless of the result- we've never lobbied to improve any of our data. They are done by independent 3rd party institutions and have never been edited by us or anybody else.

Amongst other things, we were criticized of an unscientific approach to our studies. At the same time, a "peach experiment" was supposed to show that our Medic Green Ultra model is not only not working but is actually harmful because of the uranium oxide used as a coloring agent. "I sliced a peach, put one right next to it, the other 150' away. After 10 hours, the peach near the Somavedic didn't fare as well as the one far away." Is this supposed to be scientific proof that it’s harmful? If anything, this very poor experiment and angle only scared people unfamiliar with this topic. Not to mention that this bias and “cherry-picking” of “data” is there only to re-confirm the pre-determined narrative of the article.

Here is quick feedback from Dr. Patrick Fernandez, a radiation and chemical analysis expert and a Singapore Technical Committee Radiation Safety and Security member. With close to 35 years of experience, he has extensive knowledge in developing chemical analysis and characterization methodologies and working with radiation detection for diverse applications.

The author’s attempt to carry out the peach experiment lacks scientific merit for the following reasons, and just a few are mentioned here:

• The topic of fruit deterioration is complex and involves the careful control of a number of variables, for example, temperature, humidity, insects, bacteria, and pathogens. None of these were mentioned or controlled. The running of a scientific experiment should involve studying the variable of interest while keeping all others constant.
• The samples used were not well characterized, e.g., even the original state of the two individual peaches was not shown.
• How was the deterioration of the fruit determined? It appears to lack an accurate, quantifiable methodology.
• The experiment appears to have been carried out once; there is no statistical certainty. No reproducibility was also mentioned.

So, we are criticized for “unsatisfactory” scientific studies, and something like this is presented. Again, just confirming the narrative of the article.

In addition, we've already published a statement regarding uranium oxide used as a coloring agent on our social media a few months ago (unfortunately, that account was banned because of "controversial" EMF topics we were posting about). We'll provide detailed information here as well.

Short history and data on Vaseline glass

Glass-making in the Czech Republic has a long tradition; it started in the 17th century. The Czech Republic also has a long tradition of making vaseline glass. Vaseline glass containers are clear, yellow, or yellowish-green glass pieces with 0.1% to 25% uranium dioxide. For our models Medic Green Ultra and Vedic, we use vaseline glass with 0.2% content of uranium dioxide (U3O8), the lowest end of it, only to get the color right.

Using uranium oxide to get the yellow-green to the green color of glass has been known and documented in the Czech Republic for over 160 years. In Europe, known producers of uranium-colored glass are Germany, Austria, France, and Great Britain; in overseas countries, it's the United States of America. During inspections, SÚJB (Statement of State Office for Nuclear Safety) obtained information that in 2004, American supervisory bodies were examining a case of delivery of Czech uranium-colored glass into the USA. They closed it without any limiting conditions.

Also, an extensive study done by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2001 found that the amount of radiation exposure caused by Vaseline glass to its owner is only 4 millirems per year, which is about 1% of the radiation that an average person is exposed to each year (when traveling by plane for example). The study concludes that owning Vaseline glass is safer than owning many household electronics. In addition, the radiation from similar objects is hardly measurable beyond 2 feet from them.

To get an even better perspective, the handling of materials such as uranium oxide is very strictly watched by governments. It's the same in the Czech Republic, where Somavedics are made as anywhere else in the western world. Only some glass factories can work with the type of glass and must pass all the safety regulations that are measured periodically. The bodies of Somavedics are made at these world-famous glassworks https://crystalvalley.cz/en.

Each glass body is hand-made and hand-blown. You can also have a look at the actual process in one of the glass factories here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho9j7M3-_ic (it's the Vedic with vaseline glass)

We understand when someone suffers from EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity), and their body responds negatively to electronic devices. However, claiming that the uranium oxide causes this in Somavedic is very misleading, to say at least.

In addition, the allegations claiming we have a product that doesn't work and makes the effects of EMFs even worse are false. We must disagree with that strongly. EMF is a serious topic, and we make every effort to spread awareness about it wherever we can. In my last more than 20 interviews, on Instagram, podcasts, and other platforms, I always stress how important it is to lower EMF exposure in the first place (turning off WiFi, not wearing and using Bluetooth devices, keeping the distance, grounding, etc.)

Somavedic emits negligible EMFs, but this is not even measurable two feet away. The working radius of Somavedic is much larger than the EMF field around Somavedic. Besides, suppose we could not even mitigate the EMF effects around Somavedic (two feet away), we'd never be able to get the positive data on sleep, HRV, cell regeneration, etc. The data and the user experience support our claims.

Real user’s experience

We believe personal experience is even more valuable than a "state of the art" study. How would even the best studies benefit anybody if the users did not experience any difference? That's why we strongly emphasize user experience and provide everybody with a 60-day window to test the device risk-free. We are, of course, continuously working on new studies. We are launching two new studies with respected partners in their fields in July measuring various biomarkers, DNA changes, biological age, saliva, etc.

Many of our customers have had profound life-changing experiences with Somavedic: https://somavedic.com/products/somavedic-vedic We stand firmly behind our products and their positive effects our customers repeatedly share.

For example, my most recent Instagram Live chat with Kimberly Van Der Beek. She’s very sensitive to EMFs, describing her experience with Somavedic and how it helped her. Try to explain to her that what she’s experiencing is “not real” because Somavedic has “insuffficient” science behind it. And this is only one example of many.

Another part that follows the article’s predetermined narrative and even contradicts itself is about HRV and how EMFs are not affecting it. The reviewer tries to explain that improving HRV thanks to Somavedic has supposedly no value because EMFs do not affect HRV. I’ll quote the article: “HRV is currently considered one the best objective measurements of physical fitness. The Cleveland Clinic notes that it can indicate current and future health problems, including heart conditions and mental health issues like anxiety and depression.” Then continuing and stating: “recent research did not find that wireless energy or Radio Frequency (RF) EMF had any effect on most heart variability parameters.”

So HRV is an important marker to measure and follow, and it’s good to improve it. Still, it’s supposedly not influenced by EMFs. So when Somavedic is shown to improve HRV, is that good or not? Or it’s not valid or valuable enough because the general science is not showing a link between EMFs and HRV? What about the countless Somavedic users like Dr. Jill Carnahan, whose HRV increased 1.5x compared to its previous average since her first day with a Somavedic. How would you explain this to those who experienced it? Would you “blame” it on a placebo effect?

Something to think about

At the beginning of this article, I shared my journey and why I'm doing what I'm doing. I know Somavedic is not a "magic pill" and not for everyone, but in cases like these, we cannot stay silent. We must speak up when someone is trying to discredit the benefits of our products and place seeds of doubt into our customers’ minds. Even more so when this person claims herself as an "award-winning investigative journalist" and is collaborating with a person with a very questionable history.

There was one (and only point) where the article was correct. In our google ads, we used the terms like “EMF mitigation” instead of “EMF effects mitigation” In this context, “mitigate” means to help offset the effects or some of the effects of EMFs. However, we learned that some of our customers perceived this verbiage to mean that Somavedic is blocking or completely getting rid of EMFs. Since this was brought up, we’ve corrected the wording on the ads accordingly and are very clear that Somavedic is supporting the body, not the EMFs themselves.

We stand firmly behind our products and claims, and we’ll keep providing our pioneering and versatile devices together with our unique product warranty to the community of our customers. We believe that personal experience should be the main determining factor if a product is working or not, followed by studies.

We have been in contact with the author and have been seeking to amicably resolve the inaccuracies in the article. We hope that the article will be updated to correct these misstatements.

I want to thank the majority of our partners and customers who believe in what we do and support us. Feel free to reach out to us with any questions and feedback you may have.

Thank you for reading this far.

Juraj Kocar
CEO