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
