Apparently my comments are not easy to identify from the original message. For the record, the following are comments I made.
- Steve N I agree. Maybe someone here knows something relative to that claim. One thing about CS, there are always surprises. [Steve N] It doesn't bother me but I do have to admit curiosity. I found it humorous. One can't know the full circumstances surrounding something like that and certainly Mike doesn't owe any explanations now. It does indicate more contentious times back then. [Steve N] I agree. That is why I didn't consider purchasing the book. If the study is serious, I would expect to see other references to it or knowledge of the report by one of the expert members of this list. [Steve N] -----Original Message----- From: Indi [mailto:indule...@comcast.net <mailto:indule...@comcast.net> ] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:31 PM To: silver-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CS>CS Efficiency Measurements On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:17:30PM -0500, Norton, Steve wrote: > > Just so you know, it is ionic silver that actually works - not > colloidal silver. The value of having the silver initially in > colloidal form is to get it past the stomach acids in the digestion > process. Colloidal silver converts to ionic upon contact with single > cell pathogens and at the cellular level where needed." > It'd be interesting to see some research proving that one. I agree. Maybe someone here knows something relative to that claim. One thing about CS, there are always surprises. [Steve N] Colloidal silver does not "convert to ionic" period, at least not without electricity. > One of Frank's accomplices, Mike Devour, a self-proclaimed libertarian > and owner of the Silver List, promptly banned Stuart from further > participation on the forum for life. That's rather discouraging, if true. It doesn't bother me but I do have to admit curiosity. I found it humorous. One can't know the full circumstances surrounding something like that and certainly Mike doesn't owe any explanations now. It does indicate more contentious times back then. [Steve N] > > The principal conclusions from the study are as follows: > * Before being treated with HCl, the ionic species of silver achieves > total kill in four minutes, and is at least 100 times more potent than > the particulate form of silver. > * The particulate form of silver, which does contain a small amount of > silver-ions, loses almost all its antibacterial potency when the ionic > silver component is removed (a result of the reaction to HCl). > * Comparative antibacterial potency loss in ionic-silver, due to the > same HCl treatment, is negligible. > * After being treated with HCl, under the same experimental > conditions, the ionic-silver is now shown to be a whopping 10,000 > times more potent than the particulate silver. > The results of this study clearly show that ionic species of silver > dramatically outperformed the particulate species of silver. In fact, > it was not even close!" > > I did a search on the study and the Army medic R. D. Todd and found > nothing but was informed that if I bought a 500 page book the study > would be provided in full detail in the book. Question, does anyone > know anything about the study and it's validity? > I wish I did, and hopefully someone here knows something. If the alleged study is provided in full in the book but appears nowhere else, I'd have to call shenanigans though. There are too many people with a profit motive in disseminating such informaition, if true, for it to remain such a deep, dark secret -- don't you think? I agree. That is why I didn't consider purchasing the book. If the study is serious, I would expect to see other references to it or knowledge of the report by one of the expert members of this list. [Steve N]
