In a message dated 8/2/2001 7:22:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
> Subj:Re: CS>ions & particles > Date:8/2/2001 7:22:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: [email protected] (brooks bradley) > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</A> > To: [email protected] > > > > > Without becoming adversarial, I believe you will find that > Frank Key is correct in his contention that the particles exhibit a negative > charge. Our lab personnel verified this in 1995....when we were just > getting starting in this line of investigation. > It may just be my personal perception, but I seem to detect a > tendency for some contributors to be overly challenging of Mr. Key's > positions........especially since ---with the notable exception of Stephen > Quinto and Ivan Anderson---they seem to do so from a position of relative > technical/scientific weakness. My problem is I find it somewhat bothersome > these critics seem to demand quantitative resolution on Frank's part---while > offering none of their own. Brooks: With all due respect, it's Frank who is making certain claims with regard to the in vivo germicidal activity of particulate silver, and the lack thereof for ionic silver. From the standpoint of a scientific debate, those who make claims need to provide data which support them. Without such data these "debates" are not particularly useful. If no data is available then our discussion should be focussed on effective ways to produce it. Unfortunately, there has been far too little discussion in this area. Roger
