Dear David,
you wrote
"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."
I said it "sounded like." I am not attacking MesoSilver. I do have an issue
over Silver-Colloids.com definitions which conflict with reliable sources of
information.
"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)."
I wonder why Frank implies this? Professor Gibbs noted the High Level Ions in
the Electrically produced CS. Professor Gibbs even distinguished between the
two forms.
"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!"
(Your memory serves you well.)
If Professor Gibbs had mentioned the brand names, it would have simplified
matters. He did not. So we do not know which brand was High quality.
And this is what I don't understand:
Professor Gibbs goes to great length to explain that he was examining 15
different brands of commercially sold (retail) Colloidal Silver.
Professor Gibbs states that the "DC Produced Colloidal Silver that we have
tested had the highest value of ionic silver present..." Obviously, Professor
Gibbs knew what Silver Ions were as opposed to the Metallic particles and
stated so. (Yes, I am repeating myself, but it is worth repeating)
(Quote from FAQ page you referenced above:For example, the samples that Ron
tested, some of which were made for him in the Colloidal Science Lab. Inc.(CSL)
were believed by Ron to be at least 50% colloidal when in fact they were mostly
ionic (typically 90%). The methods developed at CSL to determine ionic vs.
particle concentration were just being developed at the time Ron wrote the book
and so he was not fully informed about the ion/particle ratio of the test
samples and consequently made some erroneous assumptions. Ron assumed the
sample were at least 50% particles when they were only 10%.)
Professor Gibbs explains the methodology used in examining the samples. He even
list the brand names of the equipment used, a Confocal Microscope and a
Transmission Electron Microscope. This sounds like an in house job.
Professor Gibbs does not state that any tests on the 15 brands were performed
by any outside laboratory. If Prof Gibbs was such a good friend and colleague,
one would think that he would have mentioned and acknowledge the assistance of
such a good friend and his business. As a Academic professional, anything
outsourced to another lab would have to be mentioned, the tests performed and
on what equipment, and the Lab's "pedigree." Not to do so would be a source of
criticism against the books findings.
The Purpose of the book was: "The objective of this presentation is to provided
a clear, thorough understanding of what to look for and and what to avoid in
choosing good colloidal silver products.
He continues, "Information presently available about colloidal silver products
is sometimes confusing and is often misleading. Much of the advertising and
"literature" about colloidal silver is written by non-experts and is slanted
toward promoting a particular product or particular devices to make it."
You additionally, wrote,
"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."
I do believe MesoSilver works, and have spoken to many users. Conversely, I can
say the same about EICS.
Other than 2 electrons missing, Silver Ions, and Silver Metallic Particles are
nearly identical. The Nucleus has the same number of Protons. However, there is
one difference, Silver Ions occur in Food, Silver Metallic Particles do not.
"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."
Pardon me, do you know who the IUPAC are?
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is an
international non-governmental organization established in 1919 devoted to the
advancement of chemistry. It has as its members national chemistry societies.
It is most well known as the recognized authority in developing standards for
the naming of the chemical elements and their compounds, through its
Interdivisional Committee on Nomenclature and Symbols (IUPAC nomenclature). It
is a member of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) serves to advance
the worldwide aspects of the chemical sciences and to contribute to the
application of chemistry in the service of Mankind. As a scientific,
international, non-governmental and objective body, IUPAC can address many
global issues involving the chemical sciences.
Or in short they are The final authorithy on all scientific terms used
throughout the world.
I am not typing this sarcastically, however, If I were to contact the US
National Academy of Sciences and asked who was a more reliable source of
information regarding a conflict on the definition for an Ion, an online
purveyor of Colloidal Silver or the IUPAC. I think the answer is obvious,
although they would be laughing about that one for sometime at the NAS.
The IUPAC are who remove confusion from the world of Chemistry, etc by precise
definitions which after accepted by the Scientific Community world wide as the
"Gold Standard." The IUPAC is very well researched and peer reviewed.
Particle: Small portion of matter.
Ions are Particles with an Electric Charge
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>
