[email protected] wrote: > Herb: I think the major problem here is that we are not even on the > threshold of deciding the CRITERIA of what constitutes good or > excellent CS. That's why I believe that we will be wasting our time by > allowing one vender to debate another about whose CS is best. A much > better format is to engage in discussions concerning why certain > criteria should be used to distinguish one CS product from another. > Let's see the evidence which supports *criteria selection* first. This > initial step will probably takes years to establish scientifically. > Roger >
I think there are several criteria, and for a producer it can be somewhat different than for home made. for instance stability is very important to the producer, but if someone makes it and drinks it the same day, that criteria is likely not important. Small particle size sound nice, but the real important part is the ability to kill pathogens. I think that if one is to compare products or methods of production, then a test should be done in which each is tested for it's ability to kill virus, bacteria, protozoa and fungi. In some cases a fairly large particle size with lots of surface area (like a snowflake) could be more effective than a small sherical particle. The only way to know this would be to do some testing with cultures. Another criteria is the ability to allow cells to revert back to stem cells. This is very important when used on burns or other injuries. I think it quite possible that CS is better than ions for killing most pathogens, but that ions are necessary for the conversion to stem cells. I wish there were some way to test for this without involving injury to a person or animal. Maybe if one cultured cells from scraping the inside of the mouth, one could determine if undifferentiation takes place in the prescence of silver. Worth looking into I believe. Marshall
