Except I neglected to add the main post by Mr C, I was referencing in my rebutting post. Here are both:
◾... Grizz, ... ... You can't go by what ionic silver...4d
Date: 9/21/2016 3:21:44 PM ( 4d ago )
Hits: 53 Size: 1644 char. Replies: 3
You can't go by what ionic silver does in a petri dish to determine it's effectiveness inside the body. Direct external application maybe, but there's evidence that ionic transforms within seconds after entering the body.
If you don't believe me, ask the man that sold you the Silvertron. He has very little faith in ionic silver as most of the research he goes by was done with colloidal. (Personally my experience is that ionic silver is great for anything in the body it can be directly applied to - but not once it enters the digestive tract).
And the kind of Colloidal Silver
you get using a reducing agent results in protein Colloidal Silver
that I spoke of where the particles are too big to be suspended in water. So gelatin, corn starch or other proteins are used as the medium for suspension. So not nearly as good as true water suspended Colloidal Silver
There's a lot of info in all directions to wade through here but your information is not completely correct and I don't want others trying to figure it all out here to take it as gospel.
Even your belief that the lower the voltage the lower the ion size is not correct. Bill stated that with the troy ounce of silver in particular there was no difference in particle size or advantage in going less than 15 volts.
Not to be adversarial - just to say keep reading (and have a conversation with Bill). This takes ridiculous amounts of research to be an educated buyer because of all the disinformation from all sides.
◾Research Evidence VS Business Opinion vairagi 4d
Date: 9/21/2016 5:06:11 PM ( 4d ago )
Hits: 57 Size: 4986 char. Replies: 1
The Ionic Silver's actual Antibiotic
action vs Regular Silver's non Antibiotic
action is beyond serious question and based on research, in vitro and in vivo. Some have been referred to and been posted and are easily procured online if anyone cares to read them. (even if we only consider the in vitro study using HCL, the results are damming for Regular non Ionic Silver's efficacy).
Link the research document that shows that Ionic silver transforms upon ingestion as you describe,(or is it an extrapolation by someone who thinks they already know enough about biology and not in need of proof, which isn't good Science
if you know what I mean. There are lots of books with extrapolations based on no research that many consider, unwittingly, truth), and we can go from there to how every nutrient or mineral ion particle you ingest or create by digestive processing would be unable to proceed to its intended biological target, if it were as you claim. Negative Ions in vegetables and fruits are one of the main reason why they are so helpful in maintaining health.
Anyone's faith regarding the realities in this topic is irrelevant and mentioning that only shows the lack of discernment you or they are choosing to use.
And since all ionic, and most(unless agglomerated or flocculated (mud as Gris says) regular silver waters are colloidal, the use of the term as exclusive is to confuse or demean.
The "research he goes by"? Are you saying the Silverton owner has another source of research documentation, differing from that which we have been reading? If so, we would very much want to see it, because ultimately we care only about what works best.
Or does he do his own, comparable to institutional scientific research, research, which he considers more reliable? Does that sound credible? If so what are his research discoveries, and by what protocols did he reach them?
And are you saying that your personal experience is more reliable than an institutions work? Your personal experience? How many trials have you run, and how did you run them? Such that you would come to a conclusion about topical, oral, Regular or Ionic Silver, which is contrary to the past, and most current research on Ionic Silver's supremacy over Regular Silver in having efficacy in both topical and ingestion.
I cant see this confusion from "a lot of info in all directions' as you claim. Once we read the research it appears very clear, no matter the business interests that may want to dissuade us from those proofs.
Either what we want to think or choose to think, aligns with research fact or it doesn't. We can certainly believe things different to research fact, but if we are going to successfully dispute documented serious research by people having no agenda in the matter, we need do more than just create arguments and claim unproven concepts, and then fall back on how confused things are on the subject.
The issue isn't about believing things here, on CZ. Its about using the research papers linked or referred to on CZ. Its not about the opinions of any CZ poster or any web site or web site owner, it's about facts revealed by documented research of in vitro and in vivo studies from over many years, continually finding and exacting our understanding, and as I mentioned, there have been murine, human, super indepth scans ect ect studies enough to make the argument you make seem either being that of a business interested party or a person with a skeptic's inability to discern something that is already quite evident.
On the statement, perhaps in error, that the current research opinion is that low V is valuable, is misunderstood.
It is the low ampere(current), not the voltage that determines whether the silver ions are blown off in 100nm to 1000 nm particles, or whisper off in a 10 to 20 nm size, down to .08 nm particle, from the silver rod.
And if he wants to dispute the importance of the smallest particle size than he is disputing research literature.
And if he wants to say that particle size is not defined by low ampere usage than he can show us the TENS photo he has of his experiments, to back up that claim and start a real discussion with the two photos we have of less than and a bit larger nm sized particles from Silver Lungs and from Silver Edge.
You say you dont want to be adversarial and you say it takes a lot of research.
You say that there are two different sides spreading disinformation.
But the facts are that there are hundreds of reliable documents making any research far easier than you state, unless the facts don't sit well with you and you persist in continued researching.
Of the two sides to this non argument, one presents no facts, only opinion and false misleading contrived unscientific (business?) biases, and one is based on past and the present, most up to date research data.
Continually stating as biological and Science
fact, claims without proof, in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. Personal research not yet credible enough to be considered valuable, and terms usage designed to distract, demean and confuse the uneducated to the ways of the world, "mark" (or silly skeptic caught up in some personally driven 2+2=22 thinking).
Perhaps the real reason why there is this continued repetition of difference of opinion, is that the facts, as we know them so far, don't fit someone's "needs" (others turn that into "belief") and so that side is trying to make the perception of the facts change to fit those needs by perpetuating an argument that is really over and done with.