With most preparations that listers make being both ionic and colloidal, [conducts electricity AND has a TE] the whole point of what it is that works where is somewhat moot. It all works as well as it does wherever and however it's applied. IT's like a shotgun blast...the pellets/nails/staples/rats teeth that miss don't do anything at all but the ones that hit...[you get the idea]. Color may be a moot point as well and for a similar reason. A colored CS most likely contains both small and large particles, though, personally I think it best to avoid really large ones and prefer to make the colorless variety. It could be that a varient soup within a range might actually provide some greater benefit. I dunno. Some say that anything over 5 PPM does the job. 5 PPM at what quantity? No problem, just use enough, too much goes wasted and the rest is just water. There's not even much need to measure it...just glug down some whenever you feel like it or paste it on till it feels right.
Nearly everyones version of CS is good, some might be a little better but no ones is vastly superior enough to try and hide the process/content, cut down anothers product or try and promote ones own over anothers in that [ill] manner. The hucksters who use fear based sales propaganda generally don't have a clue to what they have, promote hearsay, personal beliefs and legend as fact and try to hide ignorance with gobbledy gook technopsychobabble and diversionary finger pointing. [My sh*t don't stink...HIS does] So really, there's no basis for a fight. Just matters of interest. Ken At 11:54 AM 8/2/01 +0000, you wrote: >The listowner sez... > >Forgive me as I referee for a bit! > >The "Where to find 50 ppm......" thread started out discussing a CS >from a company called Innovative Natural Products. The claims on its >web site were justly criticized for being contradictory and unclear. It >was noted that it's claimed high concentration makes it suspect based >on our past experience with such products. > >Stephen Quinto offered some analysis he had done on this product >already, including TEM. Frank Key also offered to do a suite of tests >on it and publish the results if someone would send him a bottle. > >Then, somehow, someone happened to mention the idea of adding hydrogen >peroxide (H2O2) to CS to create a totally ionic prep. This raised >the... > > (dum dum dum) Medusa Topic(tm) > >... of ionic vs. particle "CS", which has been debated to death before >on the list, complete with barely restrained personal acrimony. > >Waving a red cape at the partisans of ionic preparations, Marshall >wrote: >> I think most of us have reached the conclusion that colloidal silver >> is more effective than ionic silver for killing pathogens. But I >> wonder about topical application. CS would I believe deposit on the >> skin without any penetration. But silver ions should be able to >> migrate into the tissues. ... Have you [Frank] done any experiments >> to address this at all? > >...prompting Ivan to reply: >> I think not Marshall. Surely most think that ionic silver is more >> effective in killing pathogens, or at least don't know which is more >> effective. > >Further discussing such possible experiments, Marshall wrote... >> If someone is capable of getting me samples of CS that have >> different sized particles, which fall in a fairly narrow range, I can >> make complete spectrographs from infrared to uv of the absorption. I >> only need a few ml of each to make the tests. > >Frank offered, in response: >> You have a sample of fairly consistent particles of about 1.4 nm in >> the Mesosilver (as shown in the size distribution plot that is >> posted for Mesosilver under the Commercial Product Reports on the >> silver-colloids web site). > >At this point, the topical die was well and fully cast, and we were >destined to descend again into the maelstrom of the... > > (dum dum dum) Medusa Topic(tm)! > >Stephen Quinto, rising to the challenge, replied: >> Your post ... is somewhat disingenuous, since this Mesosilver is now >> a commercial product made by you. What's more I quote ... "The lab >> is equipped to perform measurements of all the physical properties >> of metal colloidal solutions that pertain to the quality and >> effectiveness of the product." Perhaps you can tell this forum how >> you test for "effectiveness"? > >Which Frank answered thusly (condensed from two messages): >> That is described on the web site also. ... From the standpoint of >> the physical properties ... effectiveness of a colloid is directly >> proportional to the particle surface area per unit volume of >> colloidal solution. ... A calculated particle surface area is now >> presented in the Commercial Product Reports for use as a metric in >> comparing colloids. > >... arousing Ivan to inquire: >> You sell a health product, do you test for its effectiveness as a >> health product, as you imply in the quoted passage: "The lab is >> equipped to perform measurements of all the physical properties of >> metal colloidal solutions that pertain to the quality and >> effectiveness of the product..."? ... Do you think this CS to be >> more effective health-wise than a CS with high ionic content? Why? >> I am actually interested! > >So, we've watched in amazement as Frank's demonstrated propensity to >state his opinions as FACT has predictably raised the ire of Stephen, >and evoked a tactful challenge from Ivan. We've also quaked in terror, >as Frank's unseemly (*and* openly displayed) link to a <gasp> >commercial product was laid bare! > >Ohhh, the Horror, the Suspense!!! <SCREAM> > >The (dum dum dum) Medusa Topic(tm) strikes again! > >Ahem... > >At this point, let me explain to the gathered multitudes that you all >don't have to worry about the outcome of this particular discussion! If >you're just wondering if CS works and want to learn a bit about how to >make and use it, you can safely ignore the questions being bandied >about by the several participants in this thread... > >The question is whether it is the particulate or ionic (or some other) >component of what we generically refer to as "Colloidal Silver" that >does the job. Ultimately, the answer is of little practical concern to >us, yet, as we already know from experience that even simple, >relatively uncontrolled and uncharacterized preparations have yielded >the kinds of good results we've come to expect. > >So relax, keep learning, and enjoy (or ignore) the show! > >Gentlemen, please allow me a few further comments? > >Frank obviously believes that particles, not ions, are the effective >portion of what we generically refer to as "Colloidal Silver." He has >consequently expended great effort to develop a process to make a >particulate preparation with little ionic content. It has further been >revealed, by Frank himself on his web site, that his efforts have >proceeded to the point of marketing a commercial product. > >Please note, Stephen, that in the context of this thread, Frank didn't >claim superiority for his "Mesosilver" product, but offered it for the >uv/visible spectrophotometer measurements that Marshall was >contemplating, since it may meet Marshall's requirement for a well >characterised preparation with a narrow range of particle size and low >ionic content. > >I would like to mention, further, that Frank contacted me 2-3 weeks >back to let me know that his work had advanced to the point that they >are now marketing a product. He asked for permission to disclose that >fact to the list, so that just such difficulties as Stephen's concern >could be avoided. I said that he could do so, and that I would expect >him to continue to participate here as an individual, on a >non-commercial basis, to which he agreed. > >About that time there were a series of distractions as the list server >decided to bump him from the list several times for no reason, and I >suspect that is part of why he has not gotten around to posting that >disclosure. I'll leave it to Frank to take this opportunity to address >the issue. > >In any case, I would appreciate it if all involved would refrain from >1) accusing one another of impropriety, and 2) stating opinions as >fact, and 3) taking offense when none is intended. You are faced with >sharing the forum with individuals who are your competitors in >commercial enterprise. They also have personalities to deal with. I >understand that this makes it more difficult for you than for those of >us who do not have a commercial interest to defend. > >Please consider, though, how much you have in common with one another. >None of you would be expending so much effort if it weren't for the >fact that the products you have created help people -- can literally >save lives. > >That *each* of you have a product that works well is not in doubt, at >least for me. For the purposes of this forum, then, which is *best* is >less important than that each is *good* or even *excellent.* > >I hope that we can enjoy discussions among you that will advance the >art for all of us. It is a given that there are too many things that we >don't *know* about "CS" yet, even though you gentlebeings have each >done more than your share in unearthing the truth. Let's be good sports >and give each other enough slack to keep the discussion positive and to >remain, if possible, friends. > >I propose that we proceed to consider Ivan's questions and leave >the divisive aspects aside: >> Do you think this CS to be more effective health-wise than a CS with >> high ionic content? Why? I am actually interested! > >So am I. > >Be well, > >Mike Devour >silver-list owner > >[Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] >[mdev...@eskimo.com ] >[Speaking only for myself... ] > > >-- >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> > >
