Re: CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
- Original Message - From: Marshall Dudley Marshall Thanks for the prompt reply and for clarifying a few points. Plenty of investigation still to be done. We can stumble along together :-) Regards - Ivan. -- 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
Re: CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
- Original Message - From: Marshall Dudley >snip< > > The table shows that oxygen has an electronegative value of 3.5. > > I think the confusion may come from the fact that oxygen wants to acquire 2 > electrons when it ionically binds to something (making it appear that the atom is > positive although since it has the same number of protons and electrons so it is > really neutral), but what is important is that when it bonds or succeeds in > acquiring the two electrons it wants, it has two more electrons than protons thus > making it negative. > Reactive oxygen, oxygen ions, are negatively charged. Oxygen because of its high electron affinity, as Marshall has stated, will not give up electrons and is not found as O+, except for perhaps oxygen fluoride. A great deal of energy is required to form O-- and these ions are not stable, and will readily oxidise (donate electrons) most other elements. The electronegativity of an element is the amount of energy required to remove an electron from the neutral atom. Some compounds of oxygen, find the shared electrons orbiting close to the oxygen atom end, forming a polar molecule having a negative end (oxygen) and a positive end (other). But this charge is relative to the fact that the compound as a whole is neutral, one end is more negative than the other. Ivan -- 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
Re: CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
Reid Smith wrote: > Oxygen has a positive charge so it would be attracted to the enzyme or organism. Reference General Chemistry third Edition, by Whitten, Gailey and Davis, page 138 and 139: "The electronegativity of an element is a measure of the relative tendency of an atom to attract electrrons to itself when it is chemically combined with another atom. Electronegativities of the elements are expressed on a somewhat arbitary scale, called the Pauling scale (Table 5-6). The elecronegaivity of fluoride (4.0) is higher than that of any other element. This tells us that when fluorine is chemically bonded to other elements, it has a greater tendency to attract electron density to itself than does any other element. Oxygen is the second most electrnegative element." The table shows that oxygen has an electronegative value of 3.5. I think the confusion may come from the fact that oxygen wants to acquire 2 electrons when it ionically binds to something (making it appear that the atom is positive although since it has the same number of protons and electrons so it is really neutral), but what is important is that when it bonds or succeeds in acquiring the two electrons it wants, it has two more electrons than protons thus making it negative. Marshall -- 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
Re: CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
>Sorry for the confusion. I see what the problem is with this. OK this is >what I see happening. The organism has an enzyme that gives it a negative >charge, so as to repel oxygen. Silver by having a positive charge attracts >both oxygen and the organism to it's surface, bringing them together, so >they can combine, and they do. The oxygen is fatal to the organism, it >dies, and thus stops producing the enzyme. Without the enzyme it no longer >maintains a negative charge, and thus breaks away from the positive charge >grasp of the silver. Oxygen has a positive charge so it would be attracted to the enzyme or organism. >As I stated in the paper, there is obviously more to this than that. If >that is all there was to it, then CS would not kill aerobic organisms, which >it does. At this point we are trying to find all the answers, but certainly >have not done so yet, and can certainly stumble along the way as well. If >you or anyone finds errors in the objective analysis we have presented we >welcome the chance to correct any errors we have made. >Thanks, >Marshall Take Care Reid -- 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
Re: CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
Ivan Anderson wrote: . > However it is misleading to say that aerobic = good bacteria. > Most of the pathogens used (and disabled :-) ) in Andrew Sloops recent > post are aerobes, both Gram negative (negatively charged) and Gram > positive and are problem microbes in our society. > Yes you are correct on this. I was corrected on this by our researcher at UT and should have known better. > Do you mean that you applied a CS containing gel to the same media as > you applied liquid CS? > We have found that CS is only ineffective when applying discs to agar > because the CS will not 'wet' the agar or migrate though the medium > and hence has no zone of inhibition. If a swab saturated with CS is > wiped across the medium, a different result is found. > The protocol that was used at UT was to mix the bacteria with the agar, then mix in SL for the test, and distilled water for the control. Thus the SL and bacteria were both trapped within the gel together, but were immobalized. Then they looked for colonies within the mixture. That protocol seemed to have virtually no difference between the test and control. But when the CS was mixed with the bacteria first, let to sit an hour, then mixed with the agar, there was a 100% kill. Your surface test turned out as I would expect, we have also done this, I believe they called it a zone test, with similar results. > I notice in your research paper you state: > "It has been determined specifically that oxygen reacts with anaerobic > bacteria and viruses with the sulfhydryl (-S-H) groups surrounding the > surface. It removes the hydrogen (converting it to water) so that the > sulfur atoms form an -R-S-S-R bond. This interferes with the organism' > s transport or membrane proteins and deactivates them.(5)" > If you notice that has a footnote, that is from research from the Silver Institute. We have done no tests to verify this claim. > I think you will find that silver acts similarly, rather than having a > catalytic effect (a catalyst takes no part in a reaction). Silver ions > form 'reversible bonds with enzymes and other active molecules on the > surface of cells. The active sites on enzymes which are effected by > the biologically active ionic form of silver, are the electron > rich -SH groups. Due to its sulphydral binding propensity, > biologically available silver disrupts membranes, disables proteins > and inhibits enzymes.' > I believe you are incorrect that a catalyst can take no part in the reaction. For some catalyzed operations, such as making polyethylene, it does not take part, but acts as a templet. But in other instances it can take place in the reaction, but what happens is that it is involved for only a moment, then ends up back like it was. For instance you want to react A and B, but they will not react. The addition of a catalyst causes A to react with the catalyst (or at least be absorbed onto the surface, which is what I am claiming for CS), then it becomes available to B to react with it, so you end up with A reacted with B, and the catalyst unchanged. This is still considered a catalytic operation. > There are other points I would like you to expand upon if possible. > 1. You say the pathogen is oxidised and in this way killed. Does this > mean that the pathogen is killed by the loss of electrons? > Oxygen is fatal to most if not all aneorobic organisms. Some are very sensitive, such as botulism, which is killed or at least inhibited by exposure to air. Others require a more reactive form such as ozone or hydrogen peroxide. The exact mechanism by which it is toxic I am not sure of, unless the above from the Silver Institute is correct for all organisms. > 2. You say also that: "Silver is a catalyst. Thus, as soon as a > particle of silver has oxidised a pathogen, the pathogen loses its' > negative charge and floats away, and the silver is free to attack > another pathogen." > > If the pathogen loses its negative charge (oxidised) this must mean > that the silver ion has gained an electron and is reduced, to > elemental silver. Can you expand? Sorry for the confusion. I see what the problem is with this. OK this is what I see happening. The organism has an enzyme that gives it a negative charge, so as to repel oxygen. Silver by having a positive charge attracts both oxygen and the organism to it's surface, bringing them together, so they can combine, and they do. The oxygen is fatal to the organism, it dies, and thus stops producing the enzyme. Without the enzyme it no longer maintains a negative charge, and thus breaks away from the positive charge grasp of the silver. As I stated in the paper, there is obviously more to this than that. If that is all there was to it, then CS would not kill aerobic organisms, which it does. At this point we are trying to find all the answers, but certainly have not done so yet, and can certainly stumble along the way as well. If you or anyone finds errors in the objective analysis
Re: CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
- Original Message - From: Marshall Dudley Thanks for this Marshall, Its great to see a vendor interested in establishing and publishing such research. > Although the common wisdom is that CS only kills bad bacteria, testing > that we have had done at the University of Tennessee over the last few > months indicates that this is incorrect. We found that CS kills both > aerobic (good) as well as bad (anaerobic) bacteria pretty well equally. > Since many bacteria can convert between the two types at will > (polymorphic), this is really a plus. This is not surprising to us on the list. See the threads on repopulating the bowel. Many of the "facts" found out there are only half truths. However it is misleading to say that aerobic = good bacteria. Most of the pathogens used (and disabled :-) ) in Andrew Sloops recent post are aerobes, both Gram negative (negatively charged) and Gram positive and are problem microbes in our society. > What we found was the CS is only effective when in a liquid medium, ie. > in the stomach, or blood stream, or applied topically in liquid form. > If we used CS in a gel or solid matrix (ie. agar agar), it was basically > ineffective against all bacteria, good and bad... Do you mean that you applied a CS containing gel to the same media as you applied liquid CS? We have found that CS is only ineffective when applying discs to agar because the CS will not 'wet' the agar or migrate though the medium and hence has no zone of inhibition. If a swab saturated with CS is wiped across the medium, a different result is found. I notice in your research paper you state: "It has been determined specifically that oxygen reacts with anaerobic bacteria and viruses with the sulfhydryl (-S-H) groups surrounding the surface. It removes the hydrogen (converting it to water) so that the sulfur atoms form an -R-S-S-R bond. This interferes with the organism' s transport or membrane proteins and deactivates them.(5)" I think you will find that silver acts similarly, rather than having a catalytic effect (a catalyst takes no part in a reaction). Silver ions form 'reversible bonds with enzymes and other active molecules on the surface of cells. The active sites on enzymes which are effected by the biologically active ionic form of silver, are the electron rich -SH groups. Due to its sulphydral binding propensity, biologically available silver disrupts membranes, disables proteins and inhibits enzymes.' There are other points I would like you to expand upon if possible. 1. You say the pathogen is oxidised and in this way killed. Does this mean that the pathogen is killed by the loss of electrons? 2. You say also that: "Silver is a catalyst. Thus, as soon as a particle of silver has oxidised a pathogen, the pathogen loses its' negative charge and floats away, and the silver is free to attack another pathogen." If the pathogen loses its negative charge (oxidised) this must mean that the silver ion has gained an electron and is reduced, to elemental silver. Can you expand? Thanks Ivan -- 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
Re: CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
GO BIG ORANGE!!! I was therein 66-67. Graduated ar ETSU. Both my kids have Masters at UT. Very good paper. Kudos. Kevorkian For White House Physician. Jolly
Re: CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
Although the common wisdom is that CS only kills bad bacteria, testing that we have had done at the University of Tennessee over the last few months indicates that this is incorrect. We found that CS kills both aerobic (good) as well as bad (anaerobic) bacteria pretty well equally. Since many bacteria can convert between the two types at will (polymorphic), this is really a plus. What we found was the CS is only effective when in a liquid medium, ie. in the stomach, or blood stream, or applied topically in liquid form. If we used CS in a gel or solid matrix (ie. agar agar), it was basically ineffective against all bacteria, good and bad. That is apparently the key as to why it seems so effective for so many things, yet does not appear to cause significant problems with the natural bacteria in the intestines. Also of course if the particle size is small enought, most of the silver should be absorbed into the blood stream before it reaches the intestines, although we have done no testing to verify that yet. For the reason why we believe this is so you might be interested in reading a research paper I wrote at http://silver-lightning.com/research2.html Marshall Michael Giammarino wrote: > If CS kills both good and bad bacteria, if one uses CS routinely, > will he have to continue to supplement his body with good > bacteria. How many hours apart, should CS be taken before the good > bacteria is then introduced into the system for purpose of > repopulating? If the good bacteria is taken first, will then all the > CS be killed?
Re: CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
CS does not reach the lower intestinal track in full strength as the cs has been absorbed into the blood stream already. Evidence of this is found with the fact that if a person wants to combat candida in the intestines, he must use some sort of carrier (roughage, psyllium husk, bentonite clay, etc.) to bring the cs along with it further into the intestines. Moderate usage of cs has not, in my experience, caused a situation of depletion of good bacteria. I have, however, taken large doses of cs with psyllium fiber to kill them darned bugs (works good too!), and needed to replenish my bacteria. Jim Michael Giammarino wrote: > If CS kills both good and bad bacteria, if one uses CS routinely, > will he have to continue to supplement his body with good > bacteria. How many hours apart, should CS be taken before the good > bacteria is then introduced into the system for purpose of > repopulating? If the good bacteria is taken first, will then all the > CS be killed?
CS re; Good and bad Bacteria
If CS kills both good and bad bacteria, if one uses CS routinely, will he have to continue to supplement his body with good bacteria. How many hours apart, should CS be taken before the good bacteria is then introduced into the system for purpose of repopulating? If the good bacteria is taken first, will then all the CS be killed?
