pH Measurement Study.
City University of New York.

No, and we said it explicitly in the section above. This study is a chemistry result, not a clinical outcome. Water in a beaker is not blood in a body. The reason we publish it is that it's one piece of converging evidence - the SAR study answers "does it reduce absorbed energy?", the EEG study answers "does the brain register a difference?", and this study answers "does the underlying medium of biological systems show a measurable change in chemistry?"

The honest claim is exactly that: a measurable change in water chemistry under phone radiation, prevented by the MobileTek formulation, on official university letterhead. Anything beyond that, this study cannot prove - and we won't pretend otherwise.

Yes. The City University of New York is the largest urban public university system in the United States, with 25 campuses serving roughly 240,000 degree-seeking students. NYC College of Technology is one of those campuses, located at 300 Jay Street in Brooklyn. The lab address on the report (186 Jay Street, Voorhees 723) is part of the same complex.

Anyone can verify the institution and the lab independently through the CUNY College of Technology directory. We don't ask you to trust us; we ask you to look it up.

Fair question, asked in good faith. Those terms come from real physics literature with a body of theory behind them - they aren't invented marketing words. They're also not fully mainstream consensus. We surface this directly in the "broader theoretical framework" section above because we'd rather you hear it from us than discover it later and feel misled.

Our position is straightforward: the pH measurements stand independently of which mechanism explanation you find convincing. The chart is the chart. If a different explanation turns out to fit the data better someday, the data is still the data. Bodywell®'s marketing claims rest on the measurable effect, not the theoretical interpretation.

The chemistry of water hasn't changed. Modern phones still transmit on the same RF bands the test devices used - including 5G mid-band, which sits inside the tested frequency range. The MobileTek® formulation in today's BioCard and BioChip is the same proprietary formulation that was tested - passive technology with no firmware, no battery, no degradation over time.

The report is a final research deliverable on CUNY College of Technology letterhead, signed by both investigators. It has been independently peer-reviewed - by Prof. Motti Haridim and Prof. Moshe Einat at Ariel University, the same expert reviewers who validated the SAR and thermal work. So it has had peer review in the academic sense (independent qualified experts validating the methodology and conclusions), even though it didn't go through a journal submission cycle. Some of the underlying instrumentation methodology (the Spinning Electric Vector Analyzer) has also been presented at international symposia and appears in U.S. patent applications by Dr. Krinker.

That's an honest limitation. It's also why we publish four corroborating studies side-by-side rather than rely on any one of them. The SAR work was at an FCC-accredited lab. The EEG work followed standard clinical EEG protocols. Different layers, different jobs, full transparency on what each one is.

The same reason most companies commission university-affiliated research: independent, named investigators with their own credentials at a public institution. Bodywell® USA Inc. supplied the test materials (the BioCard and MT Equalizer) and the lab ran the experiments and authored the report. That arrangement is standard for contract research and is disclosed in the report's abstract.

The investigators chose the methodology, designed the instrumentation, ran the experiments, and signed the conclusions. The funding/sourcing of the test materials is disclosed; the data is downloadable; the institution is verifiable; the authors are named. That's how this kind of work is supposed to look.