List Members, I think the problem of undesired messages r.e. Japanese translation appeared again. I changed my "reply" preferences and I hope eliminated this. Please advise if previous problem is gone. Again, sorry.
"Jonathan B. Britten" wrote: > 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 >
