Green Desert Calcium Bentonite and Colloidal Silver

This study documents the results of a high quality colloidal silver product combined with natural bentonite ( smectite ) and tested against staphylococcus aureus. The results of the study indicate that the addition of colloidal silver improves the antibacterial properties of natural bentonite against gram positive bacteria ( the effect that bentonite has on gram positive bacteria is negligable compared with its effect against other types of pathogens ). Conversely, the effectiveness of the silver was reduced.

Natural Bentonite and Colloidal Silver
Bacterial Study and Comparison

Author: Jason R Eaton
Contact: http://www.eytonsearth.org
Lab Work: Stephen Quinto et al, Natural-Immunogenics.com
Original Source Format: Custom Document
Copyrights: Content copyright 2002 AVRA, full permission to use to Natural-Immunogenics.com.

Natural Bentonite & Silver	Natural Bentonite Partially Hydrated

The Initial Study Conducted by Natural-Immunogenics Corporation

Natural-Immunogenics Corp.
4/11/02

A Comparative Study of the Quantitative Antibacterial Efficacy
of Sovereign Silver Combined with Bentonite

The antibacterial efficacy of Bentonite -- combined with Sovereign Silver (solution A), and without Sovereign Silver (solution B) -- was evaluated in this experiment. In a series of dilutions such as are used by this lab in comparing other antibacterial 'products', esp. colloidal silvers, both were challenged equally by known pathogens. The Bentonite material used was a pre-prepared mixture [received from J. Eaton]. This Bentonite (0.1g) was combined with 1 mL of SS to create solution A; similarly (0.1g) the Bentonite was combined with 1 mL of nanopure water to create solution B.

Typical YT media was poured into sterile polystyrene plates and allowed to dry overnight. A 3mm scrape of both wild type Staphylococcus aureus (S1) and MRSA Staph (S2) were placed separately into 1250 l of nanopure water to achieve an optical density (O.D.590) of 0.135. From these cultures two standard 10:1 dilution series were performed.

Both dilution series were then inoculated, one with solution A, and the other with solution B, and exposed to them for a period of 3 minutes on the one hand and 7 minute time on the other. In the first experiment 10µl of solution A were added to the culture (S1 and S2 dilutions) for 3 minutes; similarly, this was repeated with solution B. In the second experiment 10µl of each solution was added to the respective Staph dilutions and exposed to them for 7 minutes.

After the elapsed time, a 10µl spot of cells and solution was placed onto the YT media. A positive control plate of only S1 and S2 was made, as was a negative to ensure no contamination (pic not included-no contamination). The plates were placed in a 37 C incubator overnight and the results can be seen below.

Results:

As can be seen from the relative performance of the two formulations, solution A outperformed solution B in both trials, at 3 and 7 minutes. Nonetheless, while solution B (Bentonite alone) showed some antibacterial activity, it was significantly inferior to that of the combined product (solution B). It should be noted, too, that the antibacterial efficacy of solution A is somewhat less than we have come to expect from SS alone (as in similar assays) leading one to hypothesize that some other property is thereby gained in the compromise, surely having to do with the value added by the Bentonite.

Results of Inhibition by Sol A ( Sovereign Silver and Bentonite ) & Sol B ( Bentonite ) @ 3 Mins.

	S1 ( Wild Staph )	S2 ( MRSA Staph )
Positive
Solution A
Solution B

Results of Inhibition by Sol A ( Sovereign Silver and Bentonite ) & Sol B ( Bentonite ) @ 7 Mins.

	S1 ( Wild Staph )	S2 ( MRSA Staph )
Positive
Solution A
Solution B

Commentary

Similar laboratory studies were conducted with bentonite by Dr. Howard E. Lind, M.S., BS, Ph.D. of Lind Laboratories, Brookline, Mass., with a slightly different slant. Dr. Lind was interested in studying the effects of bentonite used internally as a stomach and large intestine detoxifying agent. The dilution used was 150 ml of bentonite to 1 ml bacterial solution. The bacterial studies were conducted on Serratia Marcescene, E Coli, and Staphylococcus Aureus. The time periods where measurements were taken were every 30 minutes for 90 minutes.

In his studies, Staph responded the slowest, with only an average of a 33% reduction in bacterial counts through the trial period. The other bacteria studied responded significantly better, with the minimum reduction percentage being 85%. Dr. Lind continued on to show a 100% reduction of Proteus Mirabilis.

To further his experiments, Dr. Lind studied a mixture of P. Mirabilis, E. Coli, and S. Aureus, and demonstrated conclusively bentonite's property of selective sorption. The bentonite virtually eliminated all bacteria except the Staph.

Why in various experiments does bentonite respond slowly to Staph? The simple answer is that staph is a gram positive bacteria, and clay colloids have a negatively charged surface area. However, it should be clearly noted that a 33% reduction in population counts, if this were to occur in the body, is still significant.

The original studies by Dr. Lind can be viewed on the Eytons' Earth website:

http://www.eytonsearth.org/bentonite.html

The great infection fighting properties of natural bentonite have little to do with the antibacterial effect of bentonite. This is something that key researchers have neglected to realize, in that experimentation is often centered around studying applications as an intestinal detoxifying agent, where the dilutions in the body virtually render each "bentonite particle" chemically and electromagnetically separate from each other particle.

In the body, the clay particles, unless they collect on intestinal walls, etc., are very limited in possible action compared to an undiluted product as used externally. Externally used, the bentonite as a hydrated magma can actually pull an infection out of the body, as the preparation creates a subtle but strong electromagnetic field, that, in an effect that is not fully understood, also stimulates the body's own natural defenses at the treatment site.

Another key element that can throw off studies conducted with bentonite is the type of product used. We also submitted a fully processed bentonite ( according to our supplier, an FDA grade internal clay, rendered white through over-processing ) to Natural-Immunogenics along with the samples of natural bentonite. The "high grade" clay turned out to be virtually useless for our study purposes!

The true pioneer of the westernized use of bentonite internally was V. Earl Irons. V.E. Irons, Inc., has always paid very special attention to the balance between the purity of a product and loss of effect through processing. In fact, V.E. Irons set the standards for USP grade bentonite that much of the ( wiser ) natural supplement community has followed for decades.

All of this said, we were very pleased with the results that compared the bentonite solution with the bentonite colloidal silver mixture. It's probably going to take us years to fully document WHY.

Bentonite and colloidal silver share very little beyond that fact that each can exist as a colloid. Bentonite is excellent against some viri, an extremely wide variety of bacteria, and body inflammations and deficiencies; far more so than colloidal silver. Bentonite, however, is often not effective against fungal infections, some yeast infections, and some gram positive pathogens.

Bentonite, as used externally, can actually be REJECTED by the electromagnetic field generated by some cysts, cancers, boils, and lesions. In some of these cases, the bentonite is still effective in integrative treatment, but responds agonizingly slow, taking weeks or more of constant attention to see results. In these situations, in fact, it can be physically demonstrated that a diluted magma will pool AROUND the "object" in question, rather than being attracted TO it as is often the case with the use of bentonite.

Colloidal silver does not work via sorption and always requires direct contact for effectiveness. It attaches to cell walls and has a direct effect on cells, including cellular respiration.

The two are nearly opposite substances. The bentonite particles are formed by a complex crystal structure and carry a negative charge, while the silver ions ( dissolved ) carry a positive charge. Any colloidal silver aggregates ( particulate silver ) have a simple structure ( chemically ).

What we needed to understand is what, if anything, happens with the charged silver particles and the silver ions upon being combined with bentonite. The aluminum silicate bond of bentonite ( the crystalline framework for bentonite, not bentonite itself per se ) is incredibly strong. A properly hydrated bentonite is negatively charged with a self-sustaining electromagnetic field; in fact, there may be numerous charge layers formed. We had little doubt that the negatively charged particles would coexist in such a solution with little consequence. But what about the silver ions? Would the charge of the Ag+ be great enough to effect a chemical reaction? Or would the silver ions be held via sorption on the wide particle surface area of the bentonite, ready to be exchanged with the body when conditions provided? How extensive would agglomeration be?

Through our "real world" experiments it was easy to see that the sorptive properties of the bentonite were not effected. In fact, although we have no explanation for observations, the silver in the bentonite apparently allowed the bentonite to overcome the rejection of some boils and certainly lesions that we had noticed for years through the use of bentonite alone. The effect on efficacy, with our limited experience, was pointed and dramatic as compared to either colloidal silver or bentonite used alone ( after all, the silver must penetrate the skin and actually reach the underlying infection in order to be effective ).

Our experience told us what these new lab results confirmed: The colloidal silver is not significantly degraded by addition to a quality bentonite. While it is true that Sovereign Silver is about 10-15% MORE effective against Staph on direct contact than when combined with the bentonite preparation, the other properties of bentonite, and their possible combined action when used on the body, more than makes up for this minimal loss of efficacy, especially in circumstances where the silver is, for whatever reason, not directly reaching the infection.

It will be nearly impossible for us to scientifically prove that bentonite has the potential to exchange substances with the body, in effect penetrating the the skin's protective layer ( it is widely believed that bentonite does not have this property ). The effect is extremely minute and only happens when conditions are right ( the energy exchange between the body and the clay must be great, forcing the bentonite to exchange a carried substance in exchange for a more toxic substance being sorpted ). But this effect is one reason why one should pay careful attention to substances used in combination with bentonite.

This article has been viewed