sol wrote: > Marshall, > Interesting too that for two of the organisms tested, 20 ppm was more > effective than 10 ppm. What company did the tests results you posted?
The one Bob said to look at: Hawkeye-Jensen Here is another url with the same test: http://www.healthgoodies.com/article_lab_test_results.asp > > > Last time low ppm was discussed here, I tried it, but soon went back to > my regular 10-15 ppm. The 3-5 ppm and up to even 8 ppm or so range just > does not seem to be as effective for me personally, for my face/eye > misting, mouthwash, and oral ingestion uses. There are other advantages > to the low ppm: Much faster processing time, plus it is a whole lot > easier to make clear EIS at low ppm. But another experience I had was > with an infected open wound (small). My regular 10-15 ppm didn't do > much, but using EIS of 39 uS (likely much higher in ppm due to more > particles) worked very quickly. > > Individual differences between people might account for whether one > person gets better results from higher ppm? True, but there are really too many unknowns. Ignoring that the test results from those two sites by Hawkeye-Jensen show that 3 ppm is LESS effective than 10 to 20 ppm, we still have the dilution that takes place once it hits the stomach and blood stream. To get 3 ppm in the blood stream would require a lot of very high ppm EIS. So although interesting, it is difficult to really know what the deal is when taken internally. The results are more aptly applied to topical applications or disinfectant appliations where there is no additional dilution. Marshall > > sol > > Marshall Dudley wrote: > > > Robert Berger wrote: > > > >> I suggested that you visit Hawkeye-Jensen,Inc. on google and look at > >> the in vitro test data. They made 20 PPM EIS and diluted it to 10 > >> PPM, 3 PPM, and 1 PPM. They did not publish the 1PPM data as they > >> sell 3PPM material. There is reason to believe that the 1 PPM was > >> superior to the 3 ppm. > >> > >> I never could find that company on the net, but found what appears to > >> be the test results you are referring to. According to those results > >> the 10 ppm is much better than the 3 ppm, and they do not list 1 ppm. > >> > >> http://www.se1.us/health/colloidal-silver/test3.html > >> > >> Here is the table: > >> > >> 3ppm 10ppm 20ppm 1.0% Germaben II > >> E.Coli 130 <10 50 <10 > >> Aeruginosa 50 <10 10 <10 > >> Staph.Aureus 4,000 750 370 2,000 > >> C.Albicans 50 80 70 <10 > >> > >> So for all but C. Albicans the 10 or 20 ppm was the most effective. > >> > >> No where on that page do they indicate if the lower concentrations > >> are by dilution, or manufacture. > >> > > -- > 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: silver-list@eskimo.com > > Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com > > The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down... > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com> >
