Bob Wells wrote: > Folks, I'm starting to get more and more confused. I need to get > some straight-forward, hard science that is verifiable and > repeatable with regards to the effects of CS on different bacteria.
Bob, when I first found out about colloidal silver (a whole year and a half ago! <grin>), I was looking for exactly what you are asking for now. Straight-forward hard science. It would be great! Except for the articles Arnie Farber mentioned you won't find actual research results on the web anywhere (that I know of). And they are virtually all tests of CS *in vitro*, test tubes or petri dish cultures, and not in the body (in vivo). The only in vivo testing is clinical use by a few innovative physicians like Dr. Farber, and the mounting anecdotal evidence from the rest of us.There *just aren't* the controlled clinical studies that folks like your son normally rely on to judge the trustworthiness of an unfamiliar medicine or treatment. There are a few modern papers in the research literature that are at least somewhat related to CS. But the studies are isolated, not at all extensive, and without evidence of any major funding. > Some people ... think that CS kills good AND bad bacteria. ... > Others believe that CS has not affected the good bacteria at all. > So which is it? ... This is starting to feel like a religious > discussion rather than a scientific one. If you've ever sat around the lunchroom with a bunch of PhD's, you'll realize there's no prohibition on wild-eyed speculation just because you're a scientist! <grin> Thus I caution you *not* to be overyly concerned if we kick around some unorthodox sounding hypotheses. It's just brainstorming. And I hope to leave the silver-list open to that kind of talk so people who want to work on CS can discuss their ideas *here*. > Anecdotal evidence is great to help us know which things seem to > work and which don't. But then we need to scientifically test our > hypotheses. About all you can trust on CS right now are the anecdotal reports of users with no commercial interests of their own. This is what does *not* wither under scrutiny. The anti-CS debunkers can be debunked. The *KILLS 650 DISEASES* crowd are almost always repeating hype they read somewhere but cannot verify. But people like Marsha, Donna, Reid, Dameon, and others just won't go away! > Science would demand of us that we take the anecdotal > tests and create hypotheses... Then we need to rigorously test the > hypotheses to see if we can prove them. ... We need to move it > into the realm of science (definable and repeatable tests that > consistently show the same results). BINGO! Give that man a cigar! <GRIN> That's it in a nutshell, Bob. But there are a few steps we still need to take before we can really get to where we want to be. 1) We need to make a serious search of the literature to find every scrap of evidence and info that is already out there in scientific journals, popular books and periodicals, and the web, and catalogue it so it is all as accessible as possible. 2) We need to seriously study the physical properties of CS. Find out what you get from various processes and recipe variants (voltage, current, salt/no-salt, electrode geometry, water temperature, etc.). We need to be able to measure particle size and concentration. We need to create *model recipes and designs* that are thoroughly tested so that anybody can buy/build a generator and make CS of known quality. 3) We must gather the greatest possible body of anecdotal reports and discern what we can from them. When this is done it will encourage clinical applications by individual physicians and naturopaths. It will help new people understand what is and is not known, and be a trusted source of information. These are my long term goals for the list and our web-site (under construction). > I don't have a scientific background, but I can think and I can > learn. I just need to be pointed in the right direction. I think every one of us can help lay the groundwork. If you'd be willing to test the standard recipes (when we decide what they're going to be), reproduce the experiments others are trying (when we figure out what they should be), and pass on what you find in the literature and your own experiences and results with CS, you'll be making an important contribution. It's going to take a bit of time, but we've started to put together the personnel and resources we need. Jim's tinkering with his new microscope is one sign of that. <grin> > I'm frustrated because I have developed a number of friends who > have Lyme (including my son) and I want to offer them something > more than hope and anecdotes (although even this is helpful). My > son doesn't care to take the CS. He thinks it gives him diahrrea, > although he didn't have diahrrea when we slipped him the CS > without telling him. Each person has to make up their own mind. First, that CS is safe. Second, that it *might* be effective. Third, that it is worth the effort to try. I can't give you results and assurances that are not there. But I can tell you that reports of successful treatment of Lyme is one of the *strongest* evidence we have that CS is useful. Be sure to put your son in contact with the Lyme newsgroup and other online resources. It is usually harder than it should be to get proper diagnosis and treatment for Lyme. The disease can be debilitating, so it is important to know what you're doing and be able to persuade or even *force* your medical providers to do the right thing. There are conflicting reports on the effects of CS on intestinal flora. I'm pretty sure I've wiped out my own on occasion. I'm going to try again with a more disciplined effort along the lines that Dameon just described. I think if you use enough and just drink it down you *can* do a number on the flora. Alternatively, a low enough concentration taken routinely might *not*. > Isn't there a biology teacher or biochemist among us who can be > helpful with this? Actually we do have folks with decent credentials taking part or looking on. I have an in-house biologist I bounce things off of a lot! Unfortunately she sometimes bounces them right back at me! Ouch! <grin> On the other hand, "unconventionally" oriented folks are well represented and just as welcome here, as you can never know where the innovations will come from. Unfortunately, we are constrained by money and time to the role of amateurs doing the best we can. We can research the field, do well designed experiments and testing that is within our means, then organize the information and present it well, and make sure it is available to everybody who has a need or interest. If we do these things, we'll make it possible for others to join us, help a lot of people, and eventually, perhaps, carve out a place for CS in the mainstream. Long term, megabuck budget, high caliber research will have to wait until somebody thinks there's big money in it, or enough of us get rich to fund it ourselves. On the other hand, the mainstream may *not* choose to accept CS, ever. In which case, it's up to us to work for long term change in the political and economic realms, which is a much *bigger* task, and to protect what we've learned and our freedom to use it. Anyway, Bob, you have the lay of the land. It's a bit tough to discern what we actually know from the speculation here and elsewhere. Don't let that discourage you. If it works, and we don't yet understand it as we would like to, it still works. Be well, Mike D. [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [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: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the subject: line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
