From: Steven Foss <foss_ste...@yahoo.com>
Date: 19 September 2008 6:20:34 AM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: CS>re: CS-silver-colloids.com


Dear David



Hello Steven

My comments are below....



you wrote:

"Actually it was me not Neville who wrote the quote that you open with
below."

I read the header in haste, and already made my apologies to Neville in private

'And perhaps I wasn't clear in my purpose. My question should
have been  "What method is used to make these products that are at
least 50% colloidal?" If they are not MSP then how are they made?
Its something I've wondered about for a long time.'

For that you have to ask the manufacturer.

"Incidentally, Ron Gibbs conclusions can be viewed in a whole new light
when you realise that didn'tt actually know what he was studying."

That sounds like a direct quote from Silver-colloids.com


I'm confused about your point here. That comment in quotes above is mine. It's not a quote from silver-colloids and I'm not sticking up for mesosilver. Silver-colloids use the Ron Gibbs material to promote mesosilver. I was trying to point out how 'odd' this is when its clear Ron Gibbs findings about the success of CS is not based on using a product like mesosilver at all. In fact (and this is what many people don't realise) Ron Gibbs book proves the effectiveness of CS that is largely ionic.



Prof Gibbs was more than well aware of what he was studying. He was studying Retail "Colloidal Silver." He noted the Silver Ions in two of the Colloidal Silver samples he had from commercial sources.

Prof Gibbs wasn't an undergraduate student.

He was the director of the Center for Colloidal Science
in the U of Delaware for 15 years, had published over 85 peer reviewed journal articles and 5 technical reports, edited 14 books and had presented 61 talks nationally and internationally. His research and teaching dealt with a wide variety of topics involving colloidal materials; hot to analyse them, what they are composed of, what happens the them in nature. He had a specialy involving stuudies of metals accociated with colloidal particles, including toxicity and benefits.

His book was written "after observing an abundance of incorrect and misleading opinions in advertising and related literature, coupled with the lack of availability of correct and useful information."(The above is taken from his introduction to his book on Colloidal Silver.)

(I find this Ironic, as his book is available as a free download from silver-colloids.com which is a best an infomercial site.)

Colloids and their properties had been known to science for than 120 years when Gibbs took his post. The American Chemical Society Division of Colloid and Surface Chemistry Symposium was celebrating its 66th annual event.

With all the resources of the U of Delware, I believe Prof Gibbs knew exactly what he was dealing with.


I basically agree. But I believe Frank when he implies that the techniques for determining THE RATIO of ions to colloids was not perfected. (At least not at Colloidal Science Labs who, I think, did the analysis).



"At the time of his reseach the techniques used to analyse CS were so
underdeveloped that he thought he was examining 'colloidal' silver
when in fact he was examining ionic silver. Thats why he makes the
rather odd statement that the best CS is 'clear' on a website thats
promoting a product that clearly isn't."

Another Silver-Colloids.com quote.

Transmission Electron Microscopes had been available since 1939, Scanning Electron Microscopes had been commercially availalbe since 1965. Atomic absorption spectroscopy had been available since the late 1950's. There are of course other methods.

The Technology had been around for decades. Universities usually have access to cutting edge tech long before the private sector does, too. This isn't to say that in 8 years time there haven't been improvements and advances, this is a given, but I wouldn't say Prof Gibbs was in the stone-age as the website infers. Plus there are hundreds of independent FDA approved Labs he could have accessed.

If as the website owner maintains that Prof Gibbs changed his opinion before his death, why didn't Prof Gibbs write a letter confirming this? A verbal "personal communication" that cannot be verified is a convenient explanation, but hardly proof. A paper trail would be nice.

"You'll find this revealed in the FAQ's on silver-colloids website in
answer to a question about "Why is mesosilver colored?" The answer is
worth reading in full."

I have read it, many times, and come to the same conclusion each time:

Balderdash.



Thats an interesting interpretation. I hadn't looked at it like that. But I don't agree. I don't believe Frank Key would simply lie about this. I havent studied the site for a few years but (as i recall) heres how the situation appeared to me. (And apologies if I have this wrong).

Frank Key and Ron Gibbs were friends and colleagues. The purpose was to release a booklet that would have the effect of promoting their colloidal CS (mesosilver) whilst casting doubt on ionic CS. Frank Key made and analysed the 'good' CS, using technology he had available at the time, and mistakenly told Ron it was 'colloidal'. Ron did the follow-up research and, as predicted, found that colloidal CS worked better than ionic CS.

But then a problem popped up. Frank discoved the 'good stuff' he had made wasn't colloidal (by his definition) at all. It was at least 50% ionic, just like all the other stuff. So Ron Gibbs had simply proved that Franks good ionic CS worked better than other peoples crappy ionic CS. So what does Frank do about it? Easy... just admit (in the hard to find FAQs) that a mistake was made but leave the brochure on the website hoping that not too many people realise its got almost nothing to do with mesosiver at all. You gotta admire Franks solution. It's not dishonest, it doesn't show disrespect for his friend, and it still has the effect of promoting mesosilver!



Here is why. If the particles are as small as manufacturer claims, even into the hundreds of millions, these particles would be very diffuse and scattering light in so many directions that insufficient light would reach the human eye.

One way to overcome this would be to increase the concentration to multiple 100s of PPM. Another explanation is the particle size isn't what it claims to be.

The particle size he is claiming is so small that one would have to enlarge it 175,000 times to observe it. By comporasion, A small stone in the palm of one's hand if magnified 175,000 would appear as large as Mt. Everest. His particle size claim is about 56 angstrom. Visible light is between 4,000 violet angstroms to 7,000 angstroms dark red. Yellow is at 5700 angstroms.

However, I have also read the rants against Transmission Electron Microscopy by said owner of one of his websites. A TEM was used by Professor Gibbs to examine potentional high quality Colloidal Silver in including those made by the Electro Colloidal method which Gibbs noted the Silver Ion content in his book and an Electron Microscope was more recently as 2006 to observe how Colloidal Silver kills HIV 1 in the lab by U of Texas and the U of Mexico).

These rants appeared after a competitor used Electron Microscopy on MesoSilver Samples, and the particles were neither as dispersed or as small as one was lead to believe by advertising.

I don't doubt the MesoSilver works, all forms of Silver are valid as antimicrobials, antivirals, etc. I just don't buy his 'story'. And as to his research, with all do respect, Colloidal Science Laboraratory isn't an independent, third party lab, it's an in house lab.

The Colloidal Silver website I referenced in my post was full of errors and obfuscations. This is my opinion.

However, please check the definition I quoted from the IUPAC gold book on an Ion. If the website owner is wrong on an ion's definition (relatively simple middle school level science), then how can I trust his other science?


Silver ions and silver particles (colloids) are obviously very different critters. Unlike many of his competitors (such as Natural- Immunogenics) Frank always makes this very clear and I applaud him for that. I don't know if mesosilver works or not, but at least i think I know what it IS.

Any site (or book like your 'gold book') that doesnt clearly explain that particles and ions and are not the same thing is just adding to the confusion.


Regards
David





Best Regards,

Steve





--


--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.

Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org

To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com

Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com

The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...

List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>