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 we have presented we welcome the chance to correct any errors we have made. Thanks, 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 <mdev...@id.net>
