This is just it IMO. Testing in a petri dish and showing that ionic silver is faster and more effective than elemental silver ie MesoSilver has been done. Using HCl with both showing that ionic silver was faster at killing pathogens however this does not take into account the ionization of elemental silver and it's more prolonged action inside the body. Ionic silver is the active component and Elemental silver needs to be ionized which takes time which is what makes it slower. The reviewers use this as "evidence" that ionic is the most effective, probably to support ionic silver generator makers.

My experiences of elemental particulate CS has been fairly effective when used in the stomach, considerably better than ionic silver which took considerably larger amounts and the effect did not last long. Whereas the elemental Particulate CS lasted for hours. However that was only comparing one brand of each of Elemental vs ionic.

I think that I might of come across the research that the SilverTron guy used to come to his opinions on ionic silver and it's dangers. I have mislaid the link somewhere as I have 750 tabs open ATM. lol When I have more time I will look for it.

I do not have time now as I am attempting to get the parts to build a basic generator so that I do not need to keep buying the stuff and I am close to being out of CS. So far it has not been 100% effective so I do not even know whether the bacteria responsible are vulnerable to silver. Elemental silver did eliminate part of biofilm and infection is still active. Several others have not been affected at all!

BTW grizz, you do not seem to have the plans for that more advanced DIY CS generator in your docs unless I missed it. The link I did provide
http://morgandemers.com

I have put some questions to him which I need an answer to before I begin building that one as it will take time and money to build. Unless the current can be set low then I will not bother. He did mention that the current was limited to 10mA max and there is a knob to control the speed which I assume means current but I do need some confirmation on that and the lowest settable current. It's fairly decent but only if it allows the current to be limited sufficiently. ATM I do not know whether it can do that.

Until some progress is made with that I intend using a CRD, or multiple CRDs with a switch. Longer 12 gauge wire seems the best/cheapest and make some longer bent leads to increase the surface area. That way I get more for less. I intend reusing the silver if I make the more advanced generator.

BTW Steve is your expert grizz, he is not mine as I do not accept him. Anyone can write a book, it means nothing IMO.

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.