The Ionic as actually Antibiotic vs Regular silver's non Antibiotic quality 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.
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 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 any CZ or any web site or web site owner, it's about facts revealed by documented research of in vitro and in vivo studies form 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 has already 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 of the two sides to this non argument, because no facts have been shared by the questioning of the research side. One is based on research data and one is opposing that research data with only opinion. Making biological and Science research claims without proof and in the face of evidence to the contrary. Personal research not credible enough to be considered valuable, and term usage designed to distract and demean.
Perhaps the real reason why there is this difference of opinion is that the facts, as we know them so far, don't fit someone's needs or beliefs and so that side is trying to perpetuate an argument that is really over and done with.