Frank,
In case you missed it I removed that page early this AM. It's in one of the
posts today.
Trem
www.silvergen.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Info" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: CS>Ionic versus Colloidal
Marshall wrote:
Good, then it all still makes sense. They are correct that gel would not
properly represent the action of a colloid vs. a pathogen, you would
likely
have reproduced the results that that other company that found that
colloid
was ineffective because I think they used a gel.
Marshall are you saying that the Quinto bacteriology studies are flawed
because they were conducted on a gel medium that would show favorable
results for ionic silver and poor results for colloidal silver?
The scientists at EMSL who designed the pathogen challenge studies
concluded that the tests should be conducted in broth because the results
would be flawed if conducted on gel.
So, it sounds like you are in agreement with the EMSL scientists.
This is good information and it confirms my earlier assertions that the
Quinto test results are bogus (again).
Perhaps those list members with websites that have links to the bogus
Quinto data will be honest enough to remove the links.
On the other hand, that may just be wishful thinking since they also
desperately want to show that ionic type products work but Mesosilver does
nothing, even if it takes bogus science to make such a case.
Frank Key
Colloidal Science Lab.
www.colloidalsciencelab.com
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
