The following article was submitted with the request by Mr. Roberts to
post it to the Silver LIST, in order to counter contentions put forward
in a document link given in a recent message from Frank Key.
I won't permit Vendor Warz(tm) to be fought on the list, but I will
forward this item as a courtesy to Mr. Roberts, and for the purpose of
fostering reasoned, if brief, discussion of the content.
There are typographical issues with the conversion of the message from
other formats. The persistent appearance of the capital "T" after
product names, "MesosilverT" and "Sovereign SilverT," was, I assume,
the character substituted for (tm), or trademark.
Thank you.
Mike Devour
silver-list owner
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:49:54 -0700
From: "Dr. John Roberts" <drj...@natural-immunogenics.com>
To: <silver-list@eskimo.com>
Subject: Rebuttal
We at Natural-Immunogenics Corp. pride ourselves on being fair and
scientifically honest. In that vein, Mr. Frank Key and his hired EMSL
Analytical Laboratory have performed a critique (flawed though it was)
of our study ("Particulate vs. Ionic Silver - The End of the Debate"):
http://www.natural-immunogenics.com/news_detail.php?NewsID=9 ).
In our response
(http://www.natural-immunogenics.com/news_detail.php?NewsID=10), we
dissected the errors and confusion that their critique tried to sow.
So now, in fairness, it's only appropriate to perform an (unflawed)
critique of their study posted in the Silver Letter:
http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m81083.html )
We are assuming Mesosilver's Mr. Frank Key contracted with EMSL (which
is a for-hire testing laboratory) to compare the abilities of Mr. Key's
MesosilverT (a primarily particulate silver preparation) with
Natural-Immunogenics Corp.'s Sovereign SilverT (an ionic silver
hydrosol) under perhaps physiological gastric conditions (given the
concentration of Hydrochloric Acid used). We make this assumption
since EMSL, in their report, did not state/justify why the whopping
3,600 Parts Per Million (PPM) Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) concentration was
used.
Since we have not had an opportunity, as yet, to duplicate this study,
many unanswered questions arise in this scientist's mind relative to
the experimental parameters of this study and the seeming
incompleteness of reporting of results that are obvious to the trained
reader.
Among the error(s) and unanswered questions (and our suppositions
because of non-answers) are:
1) This is true: Mesosilver was used at TWICE the final
concentration of Sovereign SilverT in this study. According to EMSL's
report, "silver colloid products (MesosilverT and Sovereign SilverT)
were diluted to 1% concentrations of products as supplied." This means
that Mesosilver was used as 1% of 20 PPM or 0.2 PPM. Sovereign SilverT
was used at 1% of 10 PPM or only 0.1 PPM. That is HALF the
concentration of MesosilverT ! Was this choice of concentration
purposeful, or just the result of sloppy thinking? Either way, it is
just poor science: using non-normalized concentrations for side by side
product performance characterization.
This alone invalidates the study ! I call upon Mr. King to immediately
recall/withdraw the report, and to publically apologize in the Silver
Letter for its publication, and for the erroneous conclusions it might
have caused.
2) So much for a fair and level playing field. Can we
expect that all other parameters have NOT been slanted in Mesosilver's
favor? What other subtle errors (and/or manipulations) were brought
into play or not reported upon ?
3) Why dilute both products (20 PPM MesosilverT and 10
PPM Sovereign SilverT) to ONLY 1% . to 0.2% and to 0.1%, respectively ?
Mr. Key and EMSL, in their critique of the Particulate vs. Ionic Silver
- The End of the Debate article, tried to make much of the
"not-as-supplied" concentration of product used in our study - and here
they use a final 1% concentration of the as-supplied concentration
(which, as shown above, gives MesosilverT twice the functional
experimental concentration as Sovereign SilverT).
a. Why not just properly normalize the products to the SAME
functional concentration ? Why not just dilute MesosilverT to 10%,
normalizing concentrations with Sovereign SilverT ? OR.
b. Why did EMSL NOT test Natural-Immunogenics Corp.'s Argentyn 23T
(23 PPM and dilute the Argentyn 23 to match Mesosilver's 20 PPM, and
expose the microbe suspension to both products in a real life mode,
rather than in an obviously contrived way ?
Could it be that EMSL DID test at 10 PPM and/or at 20 PPM and Mr. Key
was not happy with the results ? Was it because Sovereign SilverT, at
10 PPM (and/or Argentyn 23, at 20 PPM) would kill E. coli better than
MesosilverT at those PROPERLY NORMALIZED concentrations. Could it be
that EMSL found they HAD to dilute Sovereign SilverT to 1% of as
supplied concentration so that a 3600 PPM HCl treatment would permit
MesosilverT to work better ?
LOTS of unanswered questions also abound !
1) Why use E. coli as the test organism? E. coli is typically found in
the colon, not in the stomach. The study did not do so, but if a
better in vivo study was to be performed, why not use Campylobacter
jejuni, the causative agent of ulcers ? THAT microorganism would seem
to provide a more instructive in vivo evaluation ! We are curious, if
using E. coli, why not use THE standard E. coli strain (A.T.C.C. #8739,
as specified in U.S.P. <51> test for antimicrobial effectiveness
testing) ? The use of E. coli # 25922 is surprising, since Mr. Key and
EMSL, in critiquing OUR study, made many obfuscations relative to our
using non-standard methods, conditions, etc. and here they go ahead and
once more do it themselves ! It seems their standards for
appropriateness are different than the standards to which they hold
other companies.
2) Why was 3,600 PPM of Hydrochloric Acid used in the study ? Was it
selected to simulate the HCl concentration in the Human stomach ? If
so, say it. No explanation was given for the concentration selection.
. or. were different concentrations tested (and unreported upon) until
a concentration was found which gave Mesosilver an advantage ? By the
way, in critiquing our study (which PROVED that the antimicrobic effect
of silver depends upon ionic and not upon particulate silver), Mr. Key
and EMSL complained about Natural-Immunogenics Corp.'s HCl
concentration selection, even though we DID explain the scientific
rationale for its use (to remove the small amount of ionic contaminants
from MesosilverT, leaving only particulate silver for the potency
comparison of particulate vs. ionic silver). NO explanation was given
by EMSL for the concentration selection. Why not ?
3) If the purpose of the study's setup was to mimic in vivo gastric
incubation conditions, Why was that not stated? If not, why were
incubation periods of 2 hours, 5 hours and 24 hours used ? Surely,
food doesn't remain in the stomach (in non-pathological conditions) for
more than a couple of hours. Why were such extended exposure times (5
hours and 24 hours) used ? Could they have been selected to ensure that
MesosilverT was able to perform properly as an antimicrobic. This may
be true, since our published studies prove MesosilverT doesn't act as
well nor as promptly as the ionic silver hydrosol type of product. It
has been shown in a published, scientifically controlled report (using
PROPERLY normalized product concentrations), that Natural-Immunogenics
Corp.'s Sovereign SilverT and Argentyn 23T exert their antimicrobial
effect far faster (in seconds or minutes, not having to wait hours)
than does MesosilverT See our study comprising multiproduct performance
at short exposure durations:
(http://www.natural-Immunogenics.com/news_detail.php?NewsID=12.
4) In our study (Particulate vs. Ionic Silver - The End of the Debate),
Natural-Immunogenics Corp. scientifically proved that it is the ionic
component of silver, and not the particulate component that provides
silver's antimicrobic properties (although Mr. Key, obviously, prefers
to ignore these scientifically controlled findings). This is a
scientific reality.
With this in mind, let us ponder: When contacting Hydrochloric Acid,
the relatively small amount of contaminating ionic silver in
MesosilverT would be almost immediately quenched, leaving only the
particulate species of silver. We have PROVEN that the particulate
species of silver has little or no antimicrobial potency.
Could it be that, at 2 hours, 5 hours and/or at 24 hours (a silly
interval!), perhaps the particulate silver was able to generate silver
ions by reaction with HCl and perhaps these generated silver ions
brought about the demonstrated antimicrobial activity ?
Since the particulate MesosilverT has been shown to have almost NO
antimicrobial activity in a particulate state, this is seems to be the
ONLY explanation for Mesosilver'sT antimicrobial performance as
presented in this study...
Why did Sovereign SilverT not SEEM to do as well ? Could it be because
EMSL/ Mr. Key used HALF the concentration of Sovereign Silver as they
did Mesosilver ? Could it be other parameters selected to disadvantage
Sovereign Silver (i.e. a very high HCl concentration, and a
non-representative concentration of Sovereign SilverT - 1% of 10 PPM,
and overlong exposure times which are unrepresentative of real life
usage, etc.) and which favor MesosilverT?
The latest EMSL/Frank Key report left more questions unanswered than
answered. and some downright puzzles, especially relative to the
unequal product concentrations and the other strange,
unexplained/unrationalized experimental parameters employed to "prove"
Mesosilver'sT "superiority" to Sovereign SilverT.
Why WERE these questionable parameters unexplained ?
By the way, Mr. Key has yet to respond (one way or the other) to our
invitation to join us in a mutually sponsored, fully independent
scientic product performance comparison. For details on our
invitation, please see our "modest proposal" at the very end of our
article, "Clearing the Confusion Spread by Mesosilver's Frank Key":
http://www.natural-immunogenics.com/news_detail.php?NewsID=10
Why do you think Mr. Key has tried to ignore our performance challenge?
John W. Roberts PhD.
Vice President Operations
Natural-Immunogenics
3265 W. McNab Road
Pompano Beach, FL 33069
------- End of forwarded message -------
--
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
Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html
List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
