Re: CS>Ed McCabe
Ed McCabe seems to be a popular fellow. Would someone like to explain who he is and why he's in jail? _ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the subject: line. To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com List maintainer: Mike Devour
If you can't open this message, please forward it back to me.
I've been having trouble with some messages not being readable by members of the list. I've solved it by reading my mail in Lotus Notes and sending mail from Netscape. However, I'm trying to understand why the problem occurs in the first place. Therefore, if you can read this, just ignore it. Thanks, Bob Wells
Doug's CS ppm assay test offer. Great news!
Doug wrote: While we're waiting for Bob Wells to provide more details on the MCT My reply: Hmmm, I forgot that I was the bottle neck... I need to get back to my buddy and get him to help me with the lab. Can do. Just gotta make some phone calls. Doug also wrote: Also, some good news regarding this. I have a friend who heads the organics section of a commercial environmental testing laboratory. She has offered to arrange with the metals section of the lab to test our sample. The output of the test would be the concentration of elemental and ionic silver expressed in parts per million. As another poster cleverly suggested, if all the participants receive a small sample of the master sample then they can "calibrate" their TDS-1's against the labs results. Oh yeh, did I forget to mention that they would test this sample for us for FREE! Love that word. My reply: Doug, can they test both the ppm and the particle size? Doug wrote: So the short story is, we need to decide on the brewing process, cook some up, mail it to me and I'll get it to the lab for the test then I'll post the results. Then we and the MCT lab will have a much better idea of what we're using on the bug tests. That is providing there's not such a long time between the two sets of tests that shelf life becomes an issue. We need to move briskly on this since if the lab gets busy with their paying work then the offer may be withdrawn. We should try to have consensus on this within a few days and I would like to have sample in hand within say 10 days. Does that seem reasonable to all? My reply: I'm in full agreement. Bob Wells
Response to jbs on CS Testing & Fundraising
bjs wrote: 1. I think the people donating the money should have the last say about just what is going to get tested. my reply: I absolutely agree. 2. I don't think anyone that donated understands what is going to be tested or what it is going to be tested on. my reply: I agree that the water has been mudied. Originally, the plan was to do a microbial challenge test on an agreed upon sample of CS. This was expected to cost $400. In the mean time, it appears that similar tests have been run in the past. There is some debate about what has been tested, but it seems clear that there is evidence that some form of CS product has been successful at either preventing the growth of the tested bacteria or at killing it. This has brought about some debate over what should be tested and how to standardize a CS so that we can have a standard against which to measure different CS solutions. We also want to develop a standardized way to make CS that we can be comfortable giving information on (both how to make it, what its properties are, and what benefits have been observed). Because the discussion has meandered a bit, I don't expect anybody to contribute a cent until those who are committed have a mutual understanding about what will be tested, how it will be tested, where it will be tested, etc. This is a big challenge, but I'm not willing to pass up the opportunity to formulate some standards that will be useful to others. I can't think of a better group to do this than the subscribers to the list (nobody else cares to do it, to the best of my knowledge). 3. I think more donations would be made if these issues were settled. With a little more money and a plan of action, we may(you) in effect not be wasting money. My reply: But, of course. 4. To attempt to start that process, would it be more cost effective to have our "better brewers" samples checked for ppm and particle sizes before any lab culture work is done? This is where I would kick in a donation. My reply: Yes. This is definitely a first step, now. Therefore, we need to determine the most reliable and cost effective way to test samples of CS. Ideally, we should be able to tell anyone how to get their home brew tested. That seemed to be the idea behind the TDS-1, until we learned that we can't rely on its measurements until we can compare it to an objective standard. Any suggestions on testing would be appreciated. I am following a lead myself, but don't want to discuss it until I find out if it is viable. At the very least, I'd like to be able to compare some home brews to some commercial brands. 5. Nothing we do is to imply the safety of CS to anyone on this list or in any way to anybody else. Only the FDA can do that. My reply: That's right. This is humans, being human, and sharing what they've learned, but knowing that there is much that they don't know. Sharing lab data and methodologies is always OK. Testimonials leave me a bit uncomfortable, but they give avenues to explore and allow the composition of postulates to be tested, therefore they have value. We don't know enough, and possibly won't in the next 10-20 years, to be able to give FDA quality information on the safety of CS. I would be glad to shift the initial focus of our studies to testing and comparing home-brewed and commercial preparations of CS. We need to come up with a standard ppm and particle size and an easily reproducible way to make the same quality of CS consistently. Once we have this, we can shift to microbial challenges or other types of tests. I hope those who have made commitments so far are willing to stay committed to the process, but you should only do so to the extent you feel comfortable with the direction we are taking. As for me, I remain committed with $50 (for the moment, maybe more later if I continue to feel good about the direction we are going and the results we obtain). I would love to have suggestions of where to test the CS samples. I think we could learn a lot by asking different manufacturers to submit samples to be tested and letting them tell us what they think is important in the testing process and telling us which independent labs they consider worthwhile. It may be that everyone votes for a different lab, but if we find consensus on the issue, it may help considerably. Douglas McMurtrie, I thank you for your support to date. bjs, thanks for your suggestions above which help to clarify the direction we need to go in. Everyone: let your voices be heard if you have recommendations. I dread reading all the e-mail, but make sure you label your communication clearly so we can be efficient in our reading. Best regards, Bob Wells
Be sure to identify subjects clearly. Digest structure.
The List has been very busy lately and I'm having real trouble keeping up with all the postings, even though they are important to me. Many of the message topics are clearly identified, but some are not. Might I meekly suggest that we all try to identify our topics as clearly as possible to allow readers to focus on those subjects most important to them? It would help me, especially after a weekend to be able to sort throught the postings. I counted 30+ messages dated 7/14 and 20+ already today (7/15). I'm grateful for this wonderful forum. The ideas and support have been fast and furious. In order to accomodate more growth, however, we will need to be careful to make our messages particularly clear in the topic or subject line. Don't be afraid to change the subject line when you respond to a posting. It can be very helpful, especially when the topic starts changing from the original thread. I tried confining myself to the digest version back in May, but found that I disliked the format, especially since there were long copies of messages and the ever present trailer telling how to get on and off the list (any chance of automatically deleting those in the digest?). Furthermore, the digest seemed to cut out the sender's e-mail address so I couldn't respond directly when I wanted to (I haven't checked to see if this is still an issue). Finally, I started wanting to categorize the messages by subject (testing, other diseases, making CS, etc.) For all these reasons I went back to the regular list, but I spend too much time at it every day and it is starting to get in my way a bit. I haven't figured out how to manage this yet, but clear marking of topics will probably help. Bob Wells
Cs Testing Movement
Excellent Idea! Bob Wells Brooks Bradley wrote: For the group inaugurating the effort to commercially test CS, I would like to offer a suggestion for your consideration. If the person generating the sample material would make up a 32 ounce Master Sample, a very useful protocol might be invoked. To wit: By retaining the bulk of this Master Sample, this person could ship small calibration samples (together with a simple nomogram displaying actual test results) to each of the persons who contributed to having the commercial test made. Each recipient would then have an excellent means of calibrating his/her TDS instrument---individually. This could help maximize the benefit of the test for each of the supporters. Best wishes to all.
Silver Tester
George Martin wrote that Hanna makes a silver tester. YUP. I just looked it up on their web page. http://www.hannainst.com/products/ion/93737.htm You're right. Below is what their web page says. They've gone home for the night, but I wonder if the reagent set is needed. If so, this would be $250 for a silver tester. Ouch. Meanwhile, I got hold of the lab that did the tests for NutriTeam (the GfSE makers). They helped me understand the difference between a microbial challenge test and a Minimim Inhibitory Concentration test. The Microbial Challenge takes a predetermined number of bacteria and checks regularly to see how many are left after being exposed to the bactericidal agent. The Minimum Inhibitory Concentration Test checks to see how effectively the agent prevents growth of the microorganism. The lab said it would charge about $750 for an MIC test. Bob Wells HI 93737 Silver Meter High Sensitivity The Hanna HI 93737 measures silver fro m 0 to 0.6 mg/L in steps of 1/1000th of mg/L. This high resolution ensures better accuracy when keeping a tab on silver discharges. Easy-to-use HI 93737 measures only silver and weighs ab out half a pound so that quick tests can be easily performed even by non-technical staff on-site . Supplied with Starter Kit This instrument comes complet e with 2 cuvets, caps, 9V battery and instruction manual. Suggested Retail Price: HI 93737: $149.00* Reagents Sets HI 93737-01: (Ag) $102.00* HI 93737-03: (Ag) $303.00* Order Information Specifications * (Valid only in USA) Small quantities of silver are bacteriostatic or bactericidal. As a result, it is at times used in disinfection of pools and spas, as well as in water filters. However, presence of silver in water is generally indicative of pollution with film manufacturers and processors on the one hand and the surface finishers on the other as the ma in contributors. In fact, silver levels are closely monitored in these sectors since its presence can have an economic cost and in the body cause discoloration of skin, eyes and mucous membranes. Specifications: HI 93737 (Ag) Range 0 to 0.600 mg/L Resolution 0.001 mg/L Accuracy (@ 68°F/20°C) ±0.005 mg/L ±4% of reading Typical EMC Deviation ±0.001 mg/L Light Source Light Emitting Diode @ 555 nm Light Life Life of the Instrument Light Detector Silicon Photocell Battery Type/Life 1 x 9V / Approx. 40 hours of continuous u se. Auto-shut off after 10 minutes of non-u se Environment 32 to 122°F (0 to 50°C); RH 95% Dimensions 7.1 x 3.3 x 1.8" (180 x 83 x 46mm) Weight 10 oz. (290 grams)
TDS-1 What it actually does!
I called Hanna Instruments and spoke to their chemist to find out exactly what the TDS-1 does and how it does it. It was instructive. Their chemist said the TDS-1 actually measures conductivity between the two probes and uses this to estimateTotal Disolved Solids. According to the chemist, it is usually used for measuring salts and things like that, but it can be used for testing solutions like Colloidal Silver also. However, she was careful to tell me to use the TDS-1 only to give relative measures and not to compare the result to a commercially tested solution. She said the TDS-1 is not specifically made for testing CS and will not give an exact measurement. Furthermore, she said that it tests solids rather than ions. I think that is somewhat different from my previous understanding. The TDS-1 puts out 6 volts from one probe and measures how much current reaches the other probe. The measure is then multiplied by a conversion factor of 0.5 to get the parts per million (ppm). She said a different conversion factor would have to be used for silver, but wasn't sure what the correct factor should be. I suspect that the conversion factor for silver should be lower because metals (like silver) should be more conductive than salts and would therefore give a higher reading relative to salts. This might explain why I got a result of 18 ppm for my home-made brew and got a whopping 98 ppm for a commercial brand that claimed it was 10 ppm. For all I know, though, the commercial brand has other stuff in it or was made from water that wasn't distilled first. It seems to me that I need to find a water lab that can tell me exactly what I have and then I'll have to calculate a conversion factor to measure my solution in the future. If any of you experts out there has better information, or can give me some direction, I'm anxious to hear from you. I think I had assumed that the TDS-1 would give me an accurate measurement of the ppm in my CS. Have a great weekend everybody. Bob Wells
CS Test Results provided by GfSE maker #2
To all readers of my earlier posting on this subject: Please note that the table provided in my last posting is hard to read because of the spacing of the tabs. Therefore, please adjust the spacing so that the numbers line up correctly. If it is too confusing, let me know and I'll try to repost. Bob Wells
CS Test Results provided by GfSE maker
I've taken the time to read through the test results by Bio-Research Laboratories. Here is some of the information from their tests: Method: A microbiological assay was used to evaluate the potency of each sample against five different microorganisms (Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella typhi, Streptococcus faccium, Escherichia coli). Each organism was grown as a continuous lawn and zones of inhibition were measured to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration of the products. A zone of less than 10 mm in diameter has been defined as having no inhibition. Procedure: Sterile swabs were used to streak each trypticase soy agar (TSA) plate from a 0.5 McFarland standard of each microorganism. Four agar plugs were then removed from each plate to provide a reservoir for a series of log dilutions made from each sample in sterile deionized water. A series of four dilutions were made from 10^^-1 (0.1 g/ml) to 10^^-4 (0.0001 g/ml). Each agar well was filled with 0.1 ml at each dilution. The agar was allowed to absorb dilutions and plates were incubated face up for 24 hours at 37 degrees C. The zones of inhibition were then measured. All microorganisms tested showed some inhibition to Microdyn with a gradual decline in effect and finally a no effect dilution. At a concentration of 0.01 grams of Microdyn per ml of sterile deionized water, Candida Albicans was not inhibited (e.g. did not maintain at least a 10 mm zone free of the microorganism). Staphylococcus aureus was inhibited in a 10 mm diameter zone, Salmonella typhi was inhibited in a 12 mm zone, Streptococcus faccium was inhibited in a 10 mm zone and Escherichia coli was inhibited in a 14 mm zone. At a concentration of 0.1 grams of Microdyn per ml of sterile deionized water Candida albicans was inhibited in a 20 mm zone, Staphyloccous aureus was inhibited in a 19 mm diameter zone, Salmonella typhi was inhibited in a 25 mm zone, Streptococcus faccium was inhibited in a 16 mm zone and Escherichia coli was inhibited in an 18 mm zone. According to the tests the minimum concentrations required to maintain at least a 10 mm microorganism free zone was as follows: Can Staph Sal Strep Esch Nutri Biotic.001 .0001 .0001 .001 .001 Microdyn Silver .1 .01 .01 .01 .01 Suprayod .01 .01 .01 .1 .1 Clorox .001 .01 .01 .1.01 Maleleuca .01 .01 .01 .1 .01 OK, that's the essence of the report. What I couldn't tell from the test results was the ppm of Microdyn Silver Oxide. For that matter, I'm not even sure that Microdyn Silver Oxide is what we call Colloidal Silver. Is anyone familiar with Microdyn Silver Oxide? It would help if we knew whether it is made essentially the same way we make it and whether it is 5 ppm or 30 ppm, for example. Also, I've never dealt with Suprayod. Many thanks to those of you who explained that Maleleuca is TEA TREE OIL -- an anti-parasitic. The tests on everything but Maleleuca were run in 1995. The Maleleuca test was run early in 1998. So, now you know all that I do. Any comments? Bob Wells
Re: CS Lab Tests
On July 9 chuckwil wrote: What a wonderful thing that we're willing to put our money where our mouths are. Since this test has now been done twice, I suggest some other project. And Bob seems to be a natural leader. I nominate him Secretariat/National Treasure/Presidio. How 'bout if we send him (or whomever we elect) money-- whatever we're comfortable with-- and then come to a consensus about how to spend it. I would, however, suggest that we do as we've done on this: wait till we do a pretty thorough investigation to see if we can obtain whatever information we're after without cost. With money in hand, we'll be able to expedite this thing. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I hate taking personal responsibility for other people's money. Therefore, as mentioned in an earlier post, commitments are fine, but no money should be sent to anyone until there is a consensus about how it is to be used. Furthermore, even then, make sure you know who you're dealing with. (If and when it comes to collecting money, if I'm involved, I'll be sure to make it easy for you to know how to find me and ruin my career in finance if I'm irresponsible. ) I'm still catching up on the huge volume of e-mail from the past week and haven't had time to review the various test results that have been suggested. I'll try to get to it before the end of the day, but I'm supposed to be making money for my employer. Bob Wells
Re: Psoriasis
I'd suggest that you spring a few bucks for a TDS-1 tester. When you know that you start with 0-2 ppm of solids in your distilled water and the only change is your CS brew, you can be pretty confident that the measured potency of your solution with the TDS-1 is correct. If you don't know how to get a TDS-1 tester, below is information from a previous post. For the record, I have no connection to Hanna Instruments other than having purchased one of these devices. By the way, don't leave the switch on when you put the device away. The batteries do run down . To call Hanna Instruments to order a TDS-1 call: 1-800-HANNAUS or 1-800-426-6287. Bob Lee recently gave an e-mail address for the TDS-1 and there have been some discussion recently regarding results. I became interested enough to decide to buy one and found Hanna Instruments on the web. For those interested, the TDS-1 is for sale for $14.90. For details, check the following URL: http://www.hannainst.com/info/tdspromo.htm The following is text copied from that page: After 10 years from its introduction Hanna proudly offers TDS 1 at $ 14.90. Housed in waterproof ABS case, this pocket-sized Total Dissolved Solids tester is very durable. It is the ideal meter for fish farming, agriculture, plating, water purification and other applications with high humidity levels. Wide Measurement Range TDS1 = 1 to 999 ppm Excellent Accuracy + 2% Full Scale Long Battery Life more than 1000 measurements One-Point Calibration ATC
Re: Microbial Challenge Test Fund
Since I started this, I'm certainly good for $50. I'll let Doug keep the tally of commitments and will be happy to follow up on the lab side. What I think I'd like to do is talk to several labs to make sure we understand what we are paying for and what we expect to get. This will happen before any money gets collected. I think that all those making a monetary contribution ought to agree on the lab choice and on the procedure. By the way, I received a fax from Nutri Team, the company that makes the GfSE. It includes test results on Nutri Biotic Liquid Disinfectant (GfSE), Microdyn Silver Oxide Suspension (I presume this is CS, but somebody help me out here), Suprayod Germicide (anybody know what this is?), Melaleuca Alternifolia, Aroma Vera Brand (again, I'm clueless here) and Clorox Bleach (I do know what this is . The tests were run by Bio Research Laboratories, Inc. in Redmond, WA. Some of the results appear to be from 1995 and others from 1998. I don't think I have all the pages I need to make an informed assessment of the information. I'll try to call them later today to discuss these results and talk to them about running our test for us. This should begin to get us some useful information about testing. I'll be happy to forward a copy of the fax to a few of you, but for cost reasons I reserve the right to send it only to those who are willing to make a commitment of at least $10 to helping pay for lab tests. I'll pay for all phone charges for faxing so no committed funds will be used to pay for faxing, but I think it only fair that I not have to fax it to everyone. It does get expensive to fax 8 pages. . Again, no money will be collected until we agree on the lab, the testing process, etc. If you want the fax, make your financial commitment publicly to the list or to Doug and then send me your fax and phone number privately. I'll make sure you get my numbers in the fax. Are we creating a team, or what! Bob Wells dmcmu...@o1=nyux/DD.RFC-822=dmcmurtr\ on 07/07/98 09:25:58 AM To: silver-l...@o1=nyux/dd.rfc-822=silver-li...@eskimo.com @ omgw cc: dmcmu...@o1=nyux/dd.rfc-822=dmcmur...@bellatlantic.net @ omgw Subject: Microbial Challenge Test Fund Well, it seems that there's been some positive response to the idea of getting CS tested in a bio lab to help quantify its effects. Bob Wells had received an estimated cost of $400.00 to have the testing done. Maybe we can proceed like this. We'll keep a running list of pledges and when we hit the mark then we can send the funds to one person who could then pay the company. I'll repost the list every few days until either we get the funds pledged or interest is lost. Perhaps Bob Wells would consider being the final facilitator when we get the funds collected since he did the original research and made the necessary contacts at the lab? A firm number on cost would also be helpful. Whaddaya say Bob? Between now and then there are some additional issues to consider as Dameon so rightly points out. The basic question is "What should we test?" i.e. what source of CS, concentration, etc. Thoughts on this please. For now the fund stands as follows: Marsha Hallett - $20.00 Dameonlikow...@earthlink.net - $10.00 Douglas McMurtrie - $50.00 __ Total to Date $80.00 Note to Wil, Thanks for your kind message. I'm taking your wise advice. Best to all, Doug. -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the subject: line. To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com List maintainer: Mike Devour
CS Lab Tests
Hi folks. I'm back. I was out of town for a few days. I haven't had time to read all of my 150+ messages yet, so I don't know where we stand on the issue of having our own tests run by a reputable lab. (the Silver List is the biggest culprit). However, I heard back from the company that makes the Grapefruit Seed Extract (G.S.E., but not to be confused with grape seed extract). They are faxing me a copy of their lab tests which compared G.S.E. to CS, Chlorine, etc. I haven't seen them yet, but I appreciate their openness in sharing the reports. I'll post again as soon as I've had a chance to review them. It will be interesting to see if we can learn anything about the characteristics of the CS used for comparison purposes (ppm, who made it, etc.). Have a nice day! Bob Wells
Testing CS on borrelia Burgdorferi
I was considering the question of whether we could do a lab test of CS on bB (which is known to be the cause of Lyme Disease) and realized the basic problem here. bB has been very difficult to isolate and culture. Therefore, we don't have a measurable sample of the spirochetes to test CS on in a lab. There are efforts to culture it, but until they are definitive we don't have something to tell us specifically that CS has been shown to kill bB under lab conditions. Bob Wells
Testing CS or other anti-microbials
I called a friend of mine yesterday who I remembered develops microorganisms for industrial purposes. He needs to be able to develop them and then he has to be able to kill them to stop their action. Therefore, anti-microbials are important to him and he works with them frequently. I asked him about testing CS and other substances and he was of the opinion that the process is fairly standardized. He said that he simply sends his stopping solutions out to a reputable lab to be tested in what he called a microbial challenge. In a microbial challenge, as I understood him, a predetermined number of bacteria are placed in a test tube along with a predetermined amount of the anti-microbial material (CS, GSE, antibiotic, etc.). The kill rate can then be tested and measured. He thought that the cost for a microbial challenge test should be about $400. Not chicken feed, but not outrageous either considering that the lab has to maintain cultures of bacteria. The above information corresponded with the information I got from the company that makes the grapefruit seed extract. Given bjs' response, I thought the question was worth asking so I wrote to the salesman to ask the question. bjs said: "Comparing it to CS seems to be marketing. "100 times, 10 times, on average", what kind of a study produces that kind of precise numbers?" Sam Allen at the company responded with the following: "Regarding testing procedures, these are quite standardized and reliable. Laboratories have to be accurate to get repeat business. Known strains of microorganisms are placed in vitro in measured quantities, and the germicide is introduced in succeedingly smaller parts per million, until no inhibitory effect is established. This procedure generally is performed by hundreds, then tens, until you get into single numbers. (Why the report said 10 to 100 times more effective.) This then provides us with an MIC, or 'Minimum Inhibitory Concentration'. This has been consistently the easiest and most reliable way to test the effectiveness of any anti-microbial agent. Again, I'm no expert. For the record, my business is finance, not science. I work for a bank. But the above sounds pretty reasonable to me. Of course, no lab test can tell us exactly how a substance works in the body. They only know what it does in the test tube. Still, it is a start. I'm not yet ready to spend that much of my personal dollars, but I am considering it. Bob Wells
More on Testing CS
I just posted a message regarding grapefruit seed extract, including the manufacturer's claims regarding their product from their website. This goes exactly to the point I was trying to make earlier. They claim that Grapefruit seed extract is, on average, 10 times as effective as CS in killing bacteria. They are talking bactericidal according to the company representative I spoke to (Sam Allen). We need to be able to measure this stuff. Furthermore, we need to know which product is more effective against the Lyme spirochete. The fact that CS seems to work for some people is helpful. How helpful it is is also important. Knowing how to really test the stuff and figuring out how good it is vs. other products is critical. Knowing what doses of what concentrations is also important. Is home brewed better than commercial or just cheaper? Does quality make a difference? If grapefruit seed extract is more potent that CS for Lyme, then I would rather use that, assuming that I'm not running risks of serious side effects. If CS is better for some reason, then that is the product I want to use. Best wishes to all. Bob Wells Signed by : Robert Wells Signed on : 06/30/98 17:20:49 Certifier : North American Users Certifier - Flat
Testing CS
Thanks to Debbie McDonald for the information on Grapefruit Seed Extract. I quickly called the company and asked if it would be OK to post their add since anything that works on the bacteria that affect us or our loved ones is of interst. Sam Allen (sal...@nutriteam.com) gave me permission to copy the test results from their web page for posting on the list. Since it comes directly from their web page, you should consider it advertising, but it has interesting information. For example, it claims to be on average 10 times more effective than CS against some of the pathogens tested. Please note that although I am passing the information along I do not know enough about it to have an opinion. Therefore, please do not consider this endorsement in any way. I will follow up with a separate comment in another message. Bob Wells From: http://www.nutriteam.com/study.htm Test Results, Lab Studies Promote Use of GSE! In November of 1994, the Southern Research Institute completed a study that compared grapefruit extract as a disinfectant to a leading commercial disi nfectant. The following pathogens were involved in the test: Staphylococcus aureus Streptococcus pyrogenes Streptococcus fecalis Streptococcus pneumonia Klebsiella pheumonia Proteus vulgaris Pseudomonas aeruginosa Salmonella choleraesuis Escherichia coli Candida albicans Trichophyton mentagrophytes Herpes simplex virus type 1 Influenza virus type A2 The study concluded that grapefruit extract was twice as effective as the c ommercial formula for inhibiting the above microorganisms. Similiar results were obtained when grapefruit extract was compared wit h isopropyl alcohol, which is often the disinfectant of choice in hospitals . The most impressive comparisons were between grapefruit extract and chl orine bleach, and colloidal silver. Bio Research Laboratories of Redmond, Washington, USA, tested GSE, a commercial chlorine bleach, and colloidal si lver against Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella typhi, Streptococcus faecium, and E. coli. Again, grapefruit extract proved super ior, the test report concluding: All microorganisms tested were inhibited with moderate levels of GSE l iquid disinfectant. High levels of chlorine bleach inhibited the test organisms, but moderate levels were not effective. Because the GSE li quid was inhibitory at much lower levels, it may be assumed that it is ten to one hundred times more effective than chlorine against the organisms u sed in this study. On average, GSE proved to be ten times more effective than the colloidal silver. The Arthritis Connection Researchers have long postulated that some forms of arthritis, especially r heumatoid arthritis, may be related to bacterial strep infection. New evidence suggests that several other bacteria may also be implicated, two o f which are Proteus vulgaris and Klebsiella pneumonia. Both of these are commonly found in the digestive tract. Here's the connection: The research suggests that antibodies are produced to neutralize antig ens produced by bacteria. These antibody-antigen complexes may be absorbed through the intestinal lining and thus enter the blood stream. Normally, these complexes are filtered by the liver, kidneys, and lymphatic systems, but in some individuals, a serious complication can arise. With Klebsiella pneumonia, this reaction usually occurs in the spinal column. A debilitating condition known as ankylosing spodolytis may develop, resulting in immobilization of segments of the spinal column, resulting in drastic loss of flexibility and consequent problems. In the case of Proteus vulgaris complexes, inflammatory responses can occur in any joint. Left unchecked, this can produce the swelling, pain, deformity, and other signs of rheumatoid arthritis. In some patients who are using GSE to reduce symptoms of Candida or dysente ry, there has been a marked improvement in arthritis symptoms. And while relief may have been brought about by a reduction in C andida yeast colonization, it is very likely that the reduction in population of other, alllergy-causing bacteria is also responsible for the improvement. It should also be noted that allergic reactions to dust, chemicals, drugs, foods, can be a factor. There is also an overwhelming amount of evidence that nutritional deficiencies may also lead to arthritis. Injurie s are also a factor. Link to info on Injury, Pain Relief wi thout Drugs or surgery! Link to Secure-Server On-Line Sto re Signed by : Robert Wells Signed on : 06/30/98 17:12:25 Certifier : North American Users Certifier - Flat
CS Experiements
Jim and List, I worry that anyone might perceive my questions and concerns as being directed at Jim and his work. For the record, I also appreciate the work that Jim is doing. I hope no one, especially not Jim, will misunderstand my previous comments. So far, Jim seems to be the only one with access to a microscope that is posting to the list. So keep at it, Jim. As I've explained in other posts, my interest is in nailing down as much as we can in the interest of our health and in the interest of science. I want to avoid making or believing false claims for CS. Bob Wells Signed by : Robert Wells Signed on : 06/30/98 15:16:29 Certifier : North American Users Certifier - Flat
Re: Let's see
itigated by many tests and at least most of the possible side effects are known. They do have the benefit of rigorous study. Many substances don't get by the FDA because of the required testing. This is both good and bad, but it's hard to have your cake and eat it too. If I try a drug and it doesn't work or I'm uncomfortable with the side effects, I stop taking it. I do the same with herbs and homeopathics. Bob Wells Signed by : Robert Wells Signed on : 06/30/98 15:11:22 Certifier : North American Users Certifier - Flat
Re: By Jove! I think he's got it!
Ah. I wanted answers. Instead I get told I have good questions . I guess its a start. I called a microscope manufacturer last night. The fellow was very gentle with someone as unknowledgeable as me. He took the time to explain magnification, color spectrums, contrast and many other things that were probably over my head. I was trying to figure out how little I could spend for a basic microscope that would allow me to begin to see bacteria. I figured all I have to do is get myself some bacteria, check to see if they are alive in the microscope, add some CS and watch 'em die. At least it would be a start. I learned that most bacteria are pretty hard to see. Magnification of 400x or more can be required, and magnification is only one consideration. Just magnifying something is rarely enough to allow one to see it and distinguish its basic characteristics. A microscope good enough to begin doing the kind of work we're interested in is apparently going to cost at least $4,000. That's a bit steep for my budget. I asked if I could expect a good high school to have that kind of a microscope. Unlikely. Perhaps a university would have one, depending on the level of sophistication. So, I guess I need to see what local universities have a good microbiology program and good equipment. Seems like CS could be a great school project and worthy of an A grade to some student. Of course, with five kids, I don't have much time for taking microbiology classes and doing research. On the other hand, this topic is really getting my attention at the moment. Microbiology as an academic subject never interested me. As a practical solution to an immediate problem it seems like a wonderful discipline. I don't know where I'm going to go with this, but I have a few ideas. I'll keep you all informed as I take steps or make progress. Thanks to everyone else who is doing the same. Bob Signed by : Robert Wells Signed on : 06/30/98 12:02:20 Certifier : North American Users Certifier - Flat
CS Experiments on bacteria, yogurt, milk, etc
>Dan wrote: >I heard a guy on the radio talking about how his IONIC silver was better >than any colloidal silver.One drawback of IONIC that he did "fess up to wa s >that helpful bacteria in the gut would be wiped out. Folks, I'm starting to get more and more confused. I need to get some straight-forward, hard science that is verifiable and repeatable with regards to the effects of CS on different bacteria. Jim Einert has been doing some testing with yogurt and has reported that good bacteria seems to thrive with CS. Upon questioning, however, he admits that he's not sure how to distinguish between good bacteria and bad bacteria. There seems to be an assumption that if the organisms come from yogurt, they must be good bacteria. Perhaps, but I'm not sure. There have been threads about CS changing bad bacteria into good bacteria. Some people (apparently Dan among them) think that CS kills good AND bad bacteria. In fact, that is why some of you believe that you need to take acidophilous when you are taking CS (acidophilous replaces good bacteria after something else wipes them out). Others believe that CS has not affected the good bacteria at all. So which is it? They can't all be right, or am I missing something. This is starting to feel like a religious discussion rather than a scientific one. Anecdotal evidence is great to help us know which things seem to work and which don't. But then we need to scientifically test our hypotheses. Those of you who feel far better on CS than off of it, or who feel it has virtually cured Lyme or one of the many other diseases that come from bacteria, add great value, while possibly taking some personal risk. Many of you feel that CS has solved significant medical problems. The bottom line, however is that we need to understand 1) under what circumstances CS seems to work, 2) what it cannot do, and 3) how it works. Science would demand of us that we take the anecdotal tests and create hypotheses (so far this list group has generated plenty of anecdotal evidence and plenty of hypotheses, so we're doing good). Then we need to rigorously test the hypotheses to see if we can prove them. Rigorous tests of the anecdotal reports should allow us to better understand CS. We need to move it into the realm of science (definable and repeatable tests that consistently show the same results). At first I thought CS was bactericidal. Then there is this debate about how it affects good and bad bacteria. Then there is the suggestion that it kills all single cell organisms, including viruses, etc. Perhaps there is no research money available for testing CS, but I can't believe that the basic principles are that hard to verify. If CS kills bacteria (even if only one kind) I should be able to take that bacteria, add CS and see it die off while seeing no change in a baseline test where the only difference was the CS. If it changes bad bacteria into good bacteria, I should be able to see a change in my test sample that makes this effect clear. If it kills bad bacteria and strengthens good bacteria, I should be able to take some of each of those and test them under rigorous conditions. Ceteris Paribas (keep everything constant and change just one variable) and all that. Do we have people on this list who have done the testing and can tell me what I need to do to reproduce the tests personally? I don't have a scientific background, but I can think and I can learn. I just need to be pointed in the right direction. What do I need in the way of a microscope to do this kind of testing? How much will I have to spend? Does anyone know? I'm frustrated because I have developed a number of friends who have Lyme (including my son) and I want to offer them something more than hope and anecdotes (although even this is helpful). My son doesn't care to take the CS. He thinks it gives him diahrrea, although he didn't have diahrrea when we slipped him the CS without telling him. I appreciate all that each of you is doing by sharing your stories and your results. Without those, there would be nothing to base a hypothesis on and therefore, nothing to test. I don't know the first thing about bacteria, except that they are small, single-cell organisms; some of them make people sick and others are beneficial. Textbook pictures of bacteria from high school are vague memories from 25 years ago. I have to believe, however, that this is not difficult stuff given the scientific advances of the past two or three decades. I believe that many (though I won't even be bold enough to say most) bacteria can be seen with a basic mid-level microscope and identified. If CS can be shown to kill some of these and not others, we have a starting point. Isn't there a biology teacher or biochemist among us who can be helpful with this? Help me out here folks. Bob Wells Signed by : Robert Wells Signed on : 06/29/98 14:58:18 Certifier : North American Users Certifier - Flat
Urine Odor
I don't know much, but I'm a bit surprised that CS would eliminate urine odors. I thought the primary urine odor came from the ammonia we create naturally. The implication that it is due to bacteria is new to me, but like I said, I don't know much. Is it possible that somebody flushed the toilet or that it runs a little? Bob Wells BJS wrote: Another good test for effectiveness is to put a teaspoon full in a toilet full of urine and see if you can smell it the next day. If there is an odor, you need to improve, somehow. Actually, I did that toilet test starting on a Friday, and it was odor free when I came back to work on Monday.
Re: TDS-1 Phone #
I previously posted this message without a phone number. To call Hanna Instruments to order a TDS-1 call: 1-800-HANNAUS or 1-800-426-6287. Bob Lee recently gave an e-mail address for the TDS-1 and there have been some discussion recently regarding results. I became interested enough to decide to buy one and found Hanna Instruments on the web. For those interested, the TDS-1 is for sale for $14.90. For details, check the following URL: http://www.hannainst.com/info/tdspromo.htm The following is text copied from that page: After 10 years from its introduction Hanna proudly offers TDS 1 at $ 14.90. Housed in waterproof ABS case, this pocket-sized Total Dissolved Solids tester is very durable. It is the ideal meter for fish farming, agriculture, plating, water purification and other applications with high humidity levels. Wide Measurement Range TDS1 = 1 to 999 ppm Excellent Accuracy + 2% Full Scale Long Battery Life more than 1000 measurements One-Point Calibration ATC
Re: CS and Milk
Bob Lees wrote: >PS, Tried the milk test, milk went bad ... >H2O2 didn`t sterilize the milk. I tried the milk test with CS and my milk went bad. However, my procedures were very loose. I assumed I did something wrong and was waiting to test it again after I had verified the ppm of my CS. (I'm getting a TDS-1.) Also, I wanted to see if I could figure out when the untreated milk went sour and when the treated milk went sour (I simply checked the samples after two or three days and both were sour). I remember one person doing the milk test who found that the cat liked the treated milk. I don't have a cat and won't drink the samples myself, so I expect to just use a "smell" test. Any other suggestions?
Re: Marsha
I've been wondering about Marsha too. I found her on the Lyme Newsgroup and she was very helpful. We last communicated on Thursday, two weeks ago. She was packing that day to move, but expected to be back up in a week. She's a little overdue. I hope she's just having fun. Bob silverwo...@o1=nyux/DD.RFC-822=silverworks\ on 04/24/98 04:10:38 PM To: mariedo...@o1=nyux/dd.rfc-822=mariedon...@worldnet.att.net @ omgw, silver-l...@o1=nyux/dd.rfc-822=silver-li...@eskimo.com @ omgw cc: silverwo...@o1=nyux/dd.rfc-822=silverwor...@bigfoot.com @ omgw Subject: Re: herx Sounds like you've got common sense, Donna. I used to have the same phenomena with doxycycline for Lyme; I took it 4 days on, 3 days off (on another abx the "off" days). I was totally wretche d by the 3rd day on doxy, but over the herx by the 2nd day off. Keep taking & posting your notes, Donna, that's really good to know & keep a log of. I need to get where you are at and have one of those aweful - good herxes to know I'm getting somewhere. I haven't increased enough; I've bee n too sporadic (more like pulsing). Where's Marsha these days? Is her computer packed up? Sincerely, Nancy -Original Message- From: Donna To: silver-list@eskimo.com Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 1:46 PM Subject: herx >Hi everyone, > Just alittle thought about Cs building up in your system to cause agyria . >I was taking the CS three times a day that brought on a major herx from th e >lyme, I felt so bad I decreased the dose to twice a day, within 2 days the >pain was manageable. Now my thoughts are this, if the CS does not leave the >system and builds up why would I have a decrease in pain within only two >days. Now about a week ago I went back to three times a day and the >pain/herx is back. The way I figure it is this, The CS must not build up in >the system if two days after stopping the dose the levels fall off enough to >stop a herx. Does this make any sense or am I misunderstanding the concep t >of the CS building up in the system to cause agyria. >Donna Earnest > > >-- >The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > >To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: >silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com >with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the subject: line. > >To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > >List maintainer: Mike Devour > Nancy Description: Binary data
