Several vendors post on their websites apparently legitimate, independent tests of CS made with their machines. One tests on so-called "toilet water," another on strep. bacteria. At some point I think it would be valuable to collect such independent lab. tests in a single folder entitled "In vitro tests" and have another folder for "In vivo non-human animal tests" and another for "in vivo human animal tests." Or something along those lines.
Sota Instruments -- no connection whatsoever with me -- claims to have Canadian government approval of their devices as Class C medical instruments, so their must be a wealth of objective data there. As for all the various list management ideas -- things are moving in the right direction, and I think my mention of Sota above is the kind of reference to a vendor that is appropriate and should be permitted in this forum. Other than this sort of thing, I wholly concur with the "no vendor" letter from Mr. Devour. JBB Marshall Dudley wrote: > [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
