> -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Key [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, 31 May 2001 23:40 > To: *Silver-List* > Subject: Re: CS>An epiphany? > > > Ivan wrote: > > > By your own admission the blood sample test had problems: > > > > "The high sodium content and other chemicals present in the... > > You are simple repeating what I wrote in the report.
Yes of course Frank, what better way to answer your question! > This means that the absolute values of the measurement are not as > accurate as > we would have liked. By normalizing the measured results we have > expressed the > values in ratiometric form (relative to each other) which is > scientifically > valid. The relative value of blood silver went up 375% during the > period of > observation. There is nothing flawed about the relative value of > the number > and the conclusion that the silver was absorbed into the bloodstream is > inescapable. Perhaps, but this is not a simple ratio. As I noted at the time, your first reading above the base line results in a concentration of twice as much silver as actually ingested (assuming a 100% absorption), and your second reading, greater than three times the amount ingested, and you note that the concentration was still increasing. Your blood silver rise of 375% is meaningless without an accompanying determination of the relative increase across a range of concentrations which included instrument error, in other words, a calibration curve...which admittedly may have been difficult given the problems you were having. > > These problems mean that the results are unreliable. > > Nonsense. Expressing the measured results in ratiometric form is > scientifically valid and does not render the results unreliable. Unreliable results are unreliable no matter how you express them! > > It would also have been wise to conduct a spiked matrix reading > and sample > > dilution series, to account for interfering species. > > That is your opinion, we do not believe it would change the > results at all. All I have written is simply my opinion, and thus subject to error :-) > > Also, no determination of the silver species was attempted (particulate > > silver or silver ions) and the assumption that there is nothing in the > > gastric juices that could ionise the particulate silver and > therefore the > > blood borne silver is particulate, is only an assumption and not a > > scientific conclusion. > > Determination of the silver species was beyond the scope of the > experiment. It > would be interesting to know, but would not change the fact that > blood silver > went up 375% during the observation period. Yes, and because of this limitation conclusions cannot be drawn as to the species of silver found in the serum...at least not in the terms you use. > > None of this, of course, addresses the question of the effectiveness of > > particulate ionic silver, but it does seem likely, given your > experiment, > > that particulate silver is absorbed into the blood stream in > some form and > > amount, as yet undetermined. > > We did not address the issue of effectiveness. > > The stated purpose of the experiment was to determine if silver > nanoparticles in an ingested colloidal solution would be absorbed > through the lining of the GI tract into the bloodstream. > > The experiment proved that particles are absorbed. I would not be so absolute, but as I said, it seems likely that this is so. > Prior to this experiment, it was speculated that only ions could > be absorbed and particles would not be absorbed through the > lining of the GI tract. > > The inescapable conclusion that resulted from this experiment is: > > 1. Silver particles are indeed absorbed into the bloodstream > through the lining of the GI tract (primarily the small intestine). > > 2. Those claiming that only silver in ionic form can be absorbed > (made by producers and promoters of ionic silver solutions) were > incorrect in their claims. If you are referring to me, I have claimed that on the balance of the information that I have studied, it is unlikely that metal particles are absorbed other than as ions. This is the prevailing view of those who have studied mineral absorption, and my requests for information that indicated otherwise have had no result. It is not in my nature to rule anything out absolutely. I would like to think that I am not so stupid as to not be persuaded to change my mind, given compelling evidence. I have an interest in supplying the most effective CS possible, nothing more, and it would suit me as a producer that this was a particulate colloid, as this is particularly easy to produce if one has access to a chemistry lab, as I do. However, even if particulate silver is absorbed as particles, which it may well be, the question still remains whether this is an effective form of silver or not. > 2a. The same parties now claim this experiment was flawed. Well that is me, and I stand by my statement. > > > frank key Frank, if you were not so sure of your results, and formed your conclusions a little more circumspectly, I feel that you would serve the scientific cause better, and not seem to have a barrow to push. Respectfully Ivan. -- 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] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
