Re: The Ultimate Silver Ozone Water

 Thanks for the comments, but you are in a chemistry "box" that you cannot see out of. The technology used in xxx is not confined to your "box". As long as you remain in that "box", there is nothing that I can say to convince you of the errors in your comments.

I see, so your product has nothing to do with real science. It is magic!!!!!! Ooohhhh I am impressed

The size of the particle in xxx is the size of 3 Oxygen atoms COVALENTLY BONDED to 1 atom of Silver, and the minute Hydrogen.

"Minute hydrogen"?!!!! What, you are using your magic to shrink hydrogen atoms now? Gee, they should have given the Nobel Prize to you and not Warburg.

OK, so before we go any further let's make this clear. It is silver, three oxygen atoms and at least one "minute" hydrogen atom supposedly. So we would have Ag₂O₃H. This will be important in explaining another of your errors below.

It is stablized. It is non-photosensitive!

I never said anything about photosensitivity.

Its provided in clear bottles and does not break down in water.

I never said anything about it breaking down in water either. You really need to stop listening to those voices!!!

This is the most advanced technology and backed by a $1,000,000 reward, in gold, for superior safety and efficacy. You are welcome to take the challenge, but if you fail you owe the owner a whopping $1M in gold.

I don't know anything about this challenge. But if the developer really had a million in real gold they would not be here trying to con people with bogus science.

"Larger than colloidal silver" you say? What size is colloidal silver? Obviously it varies in size, and that makes your statement erroneous.

As I said the atoms in the molecule would come in to play with your erroneous statement. In order for silver to be a true colloid is has to be broken down in to small enough particles to remain in suspension. So let's look at sizes though based on atomic structure to make it easy. Silver is Ag, or one atom of silver.  As you pointed out your product has two silver atoms, 3 oxygen atoms and at least one hydrogen atom. Each attached atom adds size. So the two particles of silver alone in your product is already twice as big as a silver atom in colloidal silver. Then you have at least 4 other atoms on top of that. I suppose you also think that aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃) is also smaller than elemental aluminum.

Your biggest error is taking the silver oxide ASSUMPTION and running with it as if it is factual in describing anything to do with xxx. You make several erroneous assumptions and build a strawman full of hype that you fabricate yourself.

LOL!!! Typical of cons. When confronted with evidence proving their claims are bogus they come up with very vague insults instead of evidence to the contrary since it does not exist. If people are telling the truth and really believe in their product they will fight to the end by providing EVIDENCE to their claims. Not just their say so, but real evidence such as a lab analysis proving the claims. 

Retired government officials, one of which has endoresed it as the best silver product they have ever tested in the world, and who does not make such claims without validating it with the best research methods available knows what he is endorsing.

OK, so let's see the evidence of this. What is this person's name, what part of the government did he work for, what are his qualifications as a scientist and where can we find this endorsement to make sure it really exists? You can claim whatever as you have been doing and just expect us to accept it on your word. But that is not the way things work in the real world. Especially when you are looking for investors or buyers. Do you tell them to just take your word for all this as well? Or do you have some real lab results or something as evidence to your claims.

Twisting the Warburg quote earns you no credibility either,

I did not twist anything Warburg said. If you ever read the speech he gave on his ACTUAL research like I have then you would have known that.

and neither does you comparison of the hyperbaric oxygen therapy, as their is no comparison to what is going on in the cell with the xxx particle.

I find it ironic that you use such big words in your initial presentation but you clearly lack reading skills. Did your mommy write your presentation for you or something. First you implied that I said that your product was photosensitive and broke down in water. I never said any of these. Now you said I am comparing hyperbaric oxygen therapy to a quack product. Why don't you have your mommy read to you what I wrote then have her explain it to you. In fact here is the section for her to read to you:

“Pathogens, bacteria and fungi cannot live in a highly oxygenated body. The hundreds of different diseases named by allopathy (whether viral, bacterial, communicable, autoimmune or degenerative) are but symptoms of one underlying cause. That cause is hypoxia, or oxygen starvation at the cellular level, leading to internal toxicity." Two-time Nobel Prize Winner, Dr. Otto Warburg M.D., PH.D.

This is not true by any means. If it were true we could cure at least 95% of diseases with hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which supersaturates the body's tissues with oxygen. 

So where in this statement do I even make the slightest mention of your product? That's right, I made NO mention of it.  I was showing that the claim you said Warburg made was wrong. Again hyperbaric supersaturates the body with oxygen. So if no pathogen can live in the presence of high oxygen then we would have eliminated nearly all diseases. For that matter we could cure things like MS and cancers simply by going scuba diving, which also forces more oxygen in to the tissues. So when was the last time you saw someone cured of an infectious disease by simply scuba diving? If people are not being cured this way then this proves my point that the Warburg claim is bogus.

Is that the best you've got? If so, then no sense in wasting time explaining it to you. Best of luck, though, on getting up to speed with the technical aspects of the subject matter.

In this case technical=peudoscientific hogwash, which is why you keep coming back with insults instead of evidence.