I prefer my teats in-vivo. JOH
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Quinto [mailto:squi...@natural-immunogenics.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:01 AM To: silver-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: CS>Commercial Product Reports See my replies interspersed below.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Key [mailto:fr...@strsoft.com] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:15 PM > > You presuppose that in vitro tests have some relevance to what colloidal > silver does in the body. It clearly does not. In the body there > are chloride > ions that render silver ions into silver chloride that has no known > antibacterial properties. So, pray tell, what are in-vitro teats for....? > > If one were really interested in testing efficacy, the tests would be > conducted in a solution whose chemical components closely > simulate blood serum. No, if one were really interested [and had the capability] one would go to in-vivo.... > > > Having spoken with one of the scientists at Malvern Instruments > today, it > > was made quite clear to me that the Zetasizer is NOT intended > for particle > > characterization, only size distribution and for "bulk > analysis" at that! > > .....ie. for distribution of particles of greater size than > those found in a > > fine colloid. The machine may be spec'd down to 2nm at the > small end, but > > he [the scientist] was reluctant to say how near that end it > can accurately > > get..... > > Please provide the name of the Malvern scientist you spoke with. The gentleman is Henryk Kraurup > If there are 2 nm particles in the colloid, the Zetasizer has no problem > finding them. The scales don't even start [on the products you chose] below 3.7nm -- and there is "0" data smaller than 27nm shown! > > I have prepared a sample colloid having such particles and have > run the size > distribution plot to demonstrate it. See the plot at: > > http://www.silver-colloids.com/Misc/Smalltest.html My comments were directed to the reports you had previously published on your website, not something just concocted to rebut an argument! > > > Furthermore, he opined that TEM is a very useful complement -- > how did he > > put it? "a valuable supplement" -- to the Zetasizer, esp. for particle > > characterization AND measurement of nanometer sized particles, > and for all > > such particles that are visible by TEM but may NOT be to a > Zetasizer. The > > Malvern instrument does not present itself as for Particle > Characterization. > > A TEM is useful to observer small particles ONLY in solutions > that do not have > a high ionic content. For solutions with high ionic content (like > most silver > colloids), the formation of compounds during sample preparation > creates a such > vast number of particles of the compound that any meaningful > observation of > the original particles is improbable. More information on this is > found on the > > I suspect that you failed to mention to the Malvern scientist that your > solutions were highly ionic. No, Frank, I did not fail to do so.... I was specific with him in every aspect of our conversation. > > > As happens often with colloids that contain very small particles, > > 'particulate' configurations that appear to be spherical > 'semi-agglomerates' > > may present such a face to laser diffraction that they are taken for > > particles when, in fact, they are not! .... This in clear > juxtaposition to > > the oceans of tiny particles that are just too small for the > Zetasizer to > > even 'see'. Though the semi-agglomerates may be actually > comprised of the > > same discrete particles that are similar to those circulating > freely, the > > Zetasizer sees ONLY the semi-agglomerates and takes them for giant > > particles, while we see the discrete particles within them by TEM. > > Exceptionally fine colloids [and the micrographs of them, such > as those on > > our website], are endowed with particles in the nanometer sized > class, or > > less, But these don't even show up on your printout as part of the > > distribution curve! Because the Zetasizer cannot see them at all! > > You claim such particles exist. In my opinion, what your TEM > images show is > silver oxide particles formed when the water was evaporated from > a solution > containing a high concentration of silver ions. > > What the images prove, is that large quantities of silver > compounds are formed > when the water is evaporated from a highly ionic solution, and > these particles > can be observed on a TEM. Then, what do you suppose happened to the particles that were visible, if only faintly, in the Tyndall prior to evaporation? > > > So, then, the oceans of tiny particles that are characteristic of a fine > > colloid are the same that are seen in such spherical > semi-agglomerates. That > > they are drawn together, upon close examination and yet remain distinct, > > still repelling each other ....is an interesting phenomenon. > They appear > > only just able to resist the attractive force drawing them into such > > spherical configurations by so remaining distinct. But the > Zetasizer cannot > > see or make this distinction. > > > > The Zetasizer cannot distinguish the discrete particles because > they are too > > small for it, just like the oceans of free particles. So it says the > > distribution only includes the phantom image you are taking literally to > > mean they are particles of such and such size. Were these > actual particles > > of the magnitude your machine describes, the 'solution' > harboring them would > > have the characteristic colors appropriate to those large sizes > -- namely > > yellow to red to green. > > Distinguishing discrete particles is of no importance. What is > important is > determining the particle size distribution in the aggregate, > which is the task > for which the Zetasizer was designed. The Zetasizer was designed for particle sizing in "bulk analysis", NOT particle characterization -- as I was informed. > > > As well, the Malvern scientist could not assure me absolutely > that there is > > no magnetic energy created by the machine, and we already know that the > > finer the colloid, the more magnetic fields impact it..... > > > > I'm sorry, Frank, the analyses you present on your website -- > of commercial > > products -- just doesn't 'cut it'. We've also looked at the other cs > > products you've "analysed", and find your similar FAILURES with them as > > well. And, really, if you reflect upon it, you just can't > suggest there are > > micron-sized particles in those colloids! First of all, > because you could > > almost see them with the naked eye, or at least with a laser -- as they > > would look like huge arc-lit sparklets in a laser beam. Which > is patently > > not so! And there would also be color ....which there is not! > > If you can see micron sized particles with the naked eye, you > have the best > eyes on earth, not to mention being able to see bacteria cells without a > microscope. > > What looks "like huge arc-lit sparklets in a laser beam" is not > micron sized > particles, but very large aggregated particles that will soon settle out. No, they don't settle out.... not in nine months, nor two years [as concentration analysis by AAS confirms]. > > > Furthermore, I do not doubt that the CSPro product has been > characterized by > > other TEM labs and is in possession of very different results > than those you > > have tendered for the size and distribution of its particles. > I'm sure the > > other 'analyses' will support my contention that there are alot > of 2nm to > > 5nm particles in iot, NONE of which you show. And the giant > particles your > > analysis describes -- 500nm -- do not exist except as the > semi-agglomerates > > previously described -- which your machine cannot discern. > Yes, there are > > particles in the 30 to 85nm range and they do show up, in > quantity, and on > > your size distribution, but the overall analysis is faulty AND clearly > > lacking in comprehensiveness. > > Again, TEM images of highly ionic solutions are not usable for > determining the > size of particles in the original solution. > > Everyone is entitled to their opinion. > > In our opinion, our test suite provides the most objective > evaluation of the > physical properties of the colloids available anywhere. No, Frank, not evaluation; just raw data. No Qualitative analysis whatever! And no pH data.... > > > With respect to the other cs product, your machine again misses > the 2nm to > > 5nm particles that are very present. And the gross sizes you > describe are > > once again those ephemeras, the semi-agglomerates. > > Stephen > > See the Smalltest plot described above that demonstrates 2 nm > particles are easily detectable. No, it doesn't demonstrate that that.... [As I said above] the scales don't even start below 3.7 nm > > As I see it, your complaints center around the fact that our > scientific equipment does not confirm the claims you make for > your product. > > You claim to have nanometer size particles that the Zetasizer is > unable to see, however, it is able to see the nanometer size > particles in the smalltest colloid sample without a problem. > > This may have more to do with unsubstantiated claims than faulty > scientific measurements. Again, not so, the Zetasizer does not "see" particles in the nanometer range -- per Malvern Instruments. > > We perform a uniform set of measurements in an exact and > repeatable way on all the products tested in order to determine > the physical properties of the colloidal solutions in an > objective fashion. You're using the same old whip to beat a dead horse.... > > The overwhelming majority of the feedback we are getting on the > product analysis is positive. Those visiting our site have > expressed their opinion that this type of objective analysis of > greatly appreciated and long overdue. > > Over time we hope to test every available commercial product. > Great, it's something to look forward to.... > > frank key > > > -- > 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 > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com> > >
