Frank said: <<Killing power of ionic silver in a Petri dish may be interesting but it has nothing what so ever to do with how it will behave inside the human body. All such studies fail to ever mention that fact, and in fact leave the reader with the false impression that it would work just as well inside the body. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If the studies were intended to be an honest representation of how ionic silver can kill pathogens in the body, the environment of the Petri dish would have to simulate conditions in the body. Without the chloride being present their in the test environment, the test is scientifically flawed and misleading in the extreme>>
** I have to agree with Frank on this. I'm a big fan of and advocate for CS. But I think that each time claims are made that are unfounded the more ammunition we give to those who wish to shut down the CS business. Some time back on this list, people tried to find the origin of the "CS kills over 650 pathogens" statement. No one was able to come up with verifiable evidence of this. In thinking about this, it may have been a statement based upon an extrapolation of data gathered from the performance of CS in a Petri dish on several pathogens that in vitro, act similarly to each other. It cannot be assumed that this would be the case in vivo. We got here to this discussion by discussing the effectiveness of CS, or perhaps it is more accurate to say ionic silver(?) on anthrax. Since the anthrax "attacks" in 2001, rumor has run rampant on the Web that CS will kill anthrax spores. People began marketing it for that express purpose. I spoke with many people about this during that time, trying to get more information. But I did my homework first. Interestingly, scientists with no stake in CS told me this has never been proven. But most of them didn't even have the knowledge I did of CS. Most scientists and others with stakes in CS told me that CS most certainly was effective in treating anthrax. Some told me it had been tested directly on anthrax, while others told me that it had been tested on S. Aureus which, they stated, is identical to testing it on anthrax (not true). One person, a scientist and a CS producer told me that there was no direct evidence that CS was effective in treating B anthracis due to lack of ability to obtain B anthracis material for such tests. That person was Frank Key. When asked his opinion, he stated (I hope I'm not misquoting you too badly, Frank) that he thought there was a possibility that CS of a certain quality might be able to handle anthrax. But he was clear that this was a cautious personal opinion only. Based upon his honesty and obvious knowledge, I decided that if I was going to purchase CS it would be his product. This is what led me to the statement I made that if I was would ever try CS at all to treat pulmonary anthrax, it would be Mesosilver. I would imagine that many of Frank's customers initially became customers because of his depth of knowledge and his honesty. I'm not saying others were being intentionally deceitful, but were more likely repeating misinformation they heard. I find this almost as offensive as being deceitful. IMO, it represents intellectual laziness/disinterest with more interest in selling than in selling something appropriate for a particular use. Regards, Catherine -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
