Hi Paul...and the list, Time to clear the air a bit. Paul is speaking about us.
Let me give you some information as to how this came about. We had Stephen Quinto (Natural Immunogenics) do an analysis of our CS using a transmission electron microscope. He supplied us with several 5" X 7" photos of the results. These photos have a scale attached as a reference. See http://silvergen.com/toppage2.htm As you can see, there is very even distribution of the particles and also much uniformity of particle size. Stephen's report indicated there were some larger particles in the mix. However it was apparent to me that the majority of particles were between the range of .001 or less and .005 microns. Using a dial caliper to measure the smallest ones on the photos and using the scale provided by Stephen showed me the smallest particles were less than .001 microns so I put .0006 microns as the minimum size in our description next to the photos even though the report indicated .001 as minimum. When Paul called for information I wasn't sure what the report stated and said so. It had been so long since we had gotten the report I wasn't sure what it said. I told Paul to call Stephen if he wanted to because Stephen had told me our CS was second only to his in quality. That statement had carried a lot of weight for me since Stephens product is about as good as one can get as far as I'm concerned. Paul called Stephen and was told there were some large particles in our mix. That is a fact. He had pulled the original report and read from it. However what is not clear is the fact that there were very few larger particles. The vast majority are in the extremely small range. To be honest, when we made the website I didn't feel it necessary to point out the fact there were a few larger size particles when most of the mix was in a consistently small range. I guess if I was marketing my daughter as a bride I wouldn't advertise the fact she had a wart since it would have little bearing on her overall qualities. After all it's the whole picture that counts. As a side note Frank Key recently did an analysis of our CS for a customer of ours. His analysis was that our CS was 99.97% ionic and .05 PPM particulate out of 21.5 PPM total. Hopefully you can see my reasoning to not mention there were a few larger particles when they don't really matter because there just aren't many there. If one directs a laser pointer through our CS it is obvious there are no large visible particles. The Tyndall is very weak. I also used the word "typical" in describing our particle size. Had I said this is the particle size....period.... that would have been untruthful. Anyway, after looking at the report again and using the calipers again I decided it would be best to change the minimum size from .0006 to .001 microns even though they still look that small to me in the photos. Stephen tells me they use a similar method to size the particles. And really, it's splitting hairs when we're talking about the small difference here so I changed our information to reflect the minimum size on the report. We try to be as straightforward in our descriptions and information as possible, however it appears I was not completely honest in not pointing out a small anomaly. Hopefully we won't be thought of too badly because of it. I also tried to call Paul yesterday at his place of business and his home to explain what I was going to do about our size information but he didn't return my call. Thanks for your time. Trem www.silvergen.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Ladendorf To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:59 PM Subject: CS>Buyer Beware I wanted to share an experience with the list. Yesterday I was on a website which touted the small particle size of silver made by their generator as proven by a lab analysis to show it's superiority. When I read the figures I was very, very impressed. I contacted the manufacturer to ask for a copy of the assay (certificate of analysis). The person responded: "There's a picture right on my website". Well I was looking for a certificate and a picture doesn't say anything about particle size. Right away I felt like the person was trying to sidestep the issue. Again I asked: Don't you have a certificate. "I don't think I got one" was the response. This time I was really skeptical that someone would pay to have their product analyzed and not get a certificate of analysis. They told me to contact the lab that it was tested at. No problem as this was a company that I do business with currently. The man at the lab who tested the product gave me a differe! nt set of numbers than this person told me and had on their website...larger numbers. Now the numbers didn't look so impressive - still good mind you. I called the manufacturer back and told him what the lab said. "He must have made a mistake. Let me call him and I'll call you back." Never heard back so I called the man at the lab today to confirm the numbers again. He told me he hadn't gotten a call from the mfg. I asked him, "Didn't this mfg. get a certificate?" I asked. "He certainly did, he paid for it." was their response. Next I go back to the mfg's site and see the numbers changed to much closer figures (still not accurate) to what the lab gave me. The sad thing is that I'm sure this mfg's generator is excellent quality as others have attested to and I probably would have done business with them had I not found this "error". I wonder how many other people saw those numbers and bought without verifying, thinking that they were getting something b! etter than what they got. Buyer Beware! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
