To preserve the context I have interspersed my responses in the text below, they are the lines without >. frank key
> Francis: > > Slow down there! > > > > But speaking of twisting the truth, why do producers of ionic solutions > that > > are typically 90% ionic silver label their products as "colloidal silver". > > If they > > were being truthful, the product would be labeled as an "ionic silver > > solution" > > which it technically is. > > Unfortunately, the term colloidal silver has become synonymous with silver > products -- any silver products. Did you know that the medical profession > calls their ionic salt products colloidal? Perhaps you should try to get > the AMA to start pulling licenses. Not everyone has a great chemistry > background, I believe it is unfortunate that people don't use the correct > technical term. This is not limited to silver, however. People often call > clays mud too. I had never considered petitioning the FTC regarding the > matter. Perhaps I should hold a press conference. > > Most people online reference the term colloidal silver because that is what > people refer to it as. I don't think you'd have much luck with your > petition to the FTC regarding the matter. Common usage sets a legal > precident. However, it would probably take me about 72 hours to get your > google ad removed as a violation of FTC and FDA regulations; luckily, nobody > except you has seen the need to do things like threaten lawsuits and > threaten FTC action. Incorrect common usage does not change scientific fact. Repeat a lie often enough and it begins to be accepted as truth, but it is still a lie. The simple fact of the matter is that the producers of ionic silver solutions advertise and label their products as "colloidal silver" and the non-technical populace believes the lie because it is repeated often. It is the producers themselves who are repeating the lie often. > Your website is actually much improved, and I don't have a problem with most > of it. We constantly add to the website, but definitions and other descriptions have not changed over times as you allude to. > You may want to correct your FDA reference, however. Silver is an > unclassified drug, and the FDA would love to see it become unavailable in > any form if they could justify it. As an unclassified drug, it IS regulated > by the FDA. It is, however, also protected from their interference because > it is a mineral supplement. So you're safe, as long as you don't make any > medical claims, and as long as they don't find a way to prove it can be > further classified ( and be politically safe doing so ). > > It would be helpful if you could state the concentration of silver particles > that makes it to blood stream with the recommended dosage, as used orally. > > > Mesosilver does not cause argyria. I challenge anyone to present evidence > > that > > proves otherwise. > > Actually, medical science requires that you prove that it does not. > > Personally, I know that it doesn't. That wasn't my point. I no longer have > a point, as you've changed the wording on your website. We have not changed the wording, description or defintions on our site regading argyria. We have added some links to other material. > You bought a new Zetasizer, that's great! For a fraction of the same R&D > money, you could sponsor studies off shore and start proving some of your > theories. I think you'll find some very interesting numbers if you would > focus on the liver; I'm no stranger to negatively charged particles with > wide surface areas. The very nature of a negatively charged colloid acts as > a liver detoxifier. No, we had the Zetasizer, we bought the High Performance Particle Sizer (HPPS). Without the proper lab equipment it is not possible to know what one is making. It would seem that our lab is the only one really equipped to measure colloidal particle size distributions. Even our competitors send us their products for analysis. The zeta potential that gives a colloid a negative charge does not survive in a highly ionic environment (inside the body). Zeta potential on the particles only exists in a low ionic environment like the DI water in the bottle. Once ingested all that remains is silver particles with no charge due to zeta potential and no ionic charge, in other words, neutral particles. > The value of any scientific experiment or process lies in how the data is > used. While you don't see the value in it, it is the LAW, and for very good > reason. The world doesn't operate according to Mesosilver. As an example, > it doesn't matter, and for very good reason, that you "prove" that, say, > silver kills a particular bacteria in the body, 100% of the time. If you > can't replicate this with the accepted standards of medical science, you > won't get your product approved. There is good reason for this. > > More than one person has been killed ignoring the steps of medical science, > mostly due to product contamination caused by improper packaging and/or > production methods. The killing power of any substance is first analysed > and compared to known and established equivalencies, right in those little > petri dishes you so disdain. > > Francis, most of us are aware that a direct bacterial analysis of mesosilver > vs. an ionic silver is not going to be indicative of a biological > equivalency, anymore than the clay studies I've had done are indicative of > the infection fighting properties of a bentonite colloid. You're using a > tactic that is common in the military, and literally straight out of the Art > of War. It's called misdirection. > > What does the fact that petri dishes don't show a biological equivalent have > to do with the fact that you haven't demonstrated biological efficacy? > > I'm currently following several MD supervised CS treatments for Hep C, and > from what I can tell, your product performs about equal to the rest of the > results I've been following. > > I'm sponsoring an informal test of my own, in fact. If I had a couple of > hundred grand to throw around, I would have conclusive results out within > two years, preliminary results within six months. > > As it goes, it will probably be three to four years, if things go well. > Once I have a baseline, I'll be able demonstrate one way or the other with > different types of products. > > Best Regards, > > Jason > > > > I "talk" to alot of your customers, they are very pleased with your > > product, > > > and I have never had any reason to discourage them from use, or even > > > recommend that they utilize a different product. However, when they > start > > > asking questions, I feel it is my obligation to send them to documented > > > sources showing the truth, and then I spend way too much time qualifying > > and > > > clarifying what HAS been scientifically and medically demonstrated, and > > what > > > HAS NOT. This should be your job, not mine; I'm not getting paid. > > > > > > I'm certain many of these customers have not appreciated being misled, > > even > > > if it is only a subtle twist of the truth. > > > > > > Furthermore, I think you ought to reign in that affiliate program one of > > > your suppliers has going. I know it is good for sales, but some of them > > > have no business selling your product saying the things that they do. > > > There's more at stake than Mesosilver sales. Most companies with any > > > ethical sense have guidelines for their public relations for those > > marketing > > > their products. > > > > > > > > > As always, Best Regards, > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > For those who missed it, here is more information on ionic silver: > > > > http://www.purestcolloids.com/ionic.htm > > > > > > > > For those who think ionic silver solutions should be called "colloidal > > > > silver": > > > > http://www.purestcolloids.com/notcs.htm > > > > > > > > For future reference, my name is not spelled Frances. > > > > > > > > Francis(Frank) Key > > > > PurestColloids.com > > > > > > > > Andy: > > > > > > > > Far be it for me to jump to support Mesosilver, as I don't agree with > > > their > > > > marketing strategy that includes bending and twisting the truth. > > > > > > > > However, Brooks Bradley, in the not-too-distant past, commented that > > their > > > > group evaluated quite a few colloidal silvers, and found the two best > > > brands > > > > to be Natural Immunogenics & Mesosilver. Kind of ironic, all things > > > > considered. He further commented that they could not tell the > > difference > > > > between the effectiveness of the two. > > > > > > > > Brooks was not clear if their testing was against conditions that > > required > > > > that the silver be adsorbed through the stomach or not, although I > would > > > > certainly be interested in knowing. > > > > > > > > I don't remember Frances ever making the claim that an ion is larger > > than > > > a > > > > particle, al contrar: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.silvermedicine.org/attributesofsilverparticlesandsolutions.html > > > > > > > > You'll note that Frances clearly states that one silver atom has a > > radius > > > of > > > > 0.144 nanometers, and that a silver ion has a radius of about .28 > > > > nanometers. > > > > > > > > He now states that Mesosilver has particles measuring .65 nanometers > in > > > > diameter, although previoiusly he claimed Mesosilver had particles > > > measuring > > > > 1.4 nanometers. At any rate, either measurement is not a claim that > the > > > > particles are smaller than ions, as this is not physically possible > ( to > > > my > > > > knowledge, anyway ). > > > > > > > > Frances Key cannot be correct in all of his claims, just as the ionic > > > > supporters, when it comes to silver particles, cannot be correct in > all > > > > claims. If one was correct over the other, there would be about an > 80% > > > > difference in effectiveness between the two different classes of > > products, > > > > and this just isn't true. > > > > > > > > I find silver particles just as fascinating as silver ions. My > > > > understanding on the silver colloid is as follows: > > > > > > > > Clusters of atoms organize to form a net negative charge ( zeta > > > potential ). > > > > > > > > Apparently, there is something being overlooked, at least in the > > > comparison > > > > of effectiveness between silver ions and a silver colloid. > > > > > > > > I prefer a highly ionic solution over a highly particulate one because > > the > > > > direct action of silver ions against pathogens and with human cells > has > > > been > > > > scientifically and conclusively demonstrated. The silver particles > have > > > > less "killing power", although they are more stable. > > > > > > > > I don't buy the fact that ionic silver is ineffective in the body, > > because > > > > it is contrary to my personal experience. > > > > > > > > It would be nice to understand why a quality silver colloid and a > > quality > > > > ionic silver are equally effective, if indeed they are. The obvious > > > answer > > > > is that they are both isolated silver products. I'm sure if we search > > > hard > > > > we could find a complicated one, and this might be revealing. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:51 PM > > > > Subject: Re: CS>Anthrax Comment - mesosilver > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Charles, > > > > > > > > I guess I get confused by the nomenclature. This is my > understanding: > > > > > > > > Ionic = Single silver atoms with a charge of +1. > > > > Particulate = Several silver atoms clumped together with a charge of > > > less > > > > than +1. > > > > Colloid = Anything that is small enough to stay in solution without > > > > falling out of suspension. Including molecules that contain other > atoms. > > > > > > > > Some people claim that smaller is better because there is more > surface > > > > area exposed and that ions work best. Others claim that ions combine > > with > > > > other atoms and form bad molecules and that silver particles work > best. > > > I'm > > > > thinking that either way, the exposed surface area is going to combine > > > with > > > > something and form a compound. The exposed surface area is what is > > > supposed > > > > to kill the pathogens isn't it? > > > > > > > > Anyhow, unless anyone can explain it better, Mesosilver looks like a > > > bunch > > > > of bad marketing for overcooked silver and nothing else. > > > > > > > > Just a brain fart, > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > From: Charles Sutton > > > > Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:34:09 > > > > > > > > Reads like the stuff I make. 24ppm by PWT and from the list (by now > > at > > > > least a thousand posts) it is part colloid and part ionic. The ionic > > can > > > > penetrate cells, and the colloid kills pathogens and other bugs. > Where > > am > > > I > > > > wrong??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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]> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 4:28 PM > > Subject: silver-digest Digest V103 #127 > > > > > > >
