Thanks for posting it. If you notice, I wasn't cutting down any person, rather, the word choice in the article, which apparently was the result of a person other than the author posting it, including errors. From his message to you, Dr. Knight appears to be an awesome researcher and battle-hardened fighter for Truth.
A main point I've mentioned over and over again is that there is a lot of misinformation on the internet and it comes in many forms. I'm not even talking about the DE article, but in general. We see statements like "Researchers have concluded that substance X may alleviate symptoms of condition Z" What to make of this ? How can researchers conclude something "may" do something ? That is no conclusion at all. I see this alot, and people discussing the thing as though it said something it did not. Propagandistic misinformation - Bernays would be proud.
I don't have any axe to grind, just as a chemist can't understand how something that has no ligands can bind any metals. Also, metals wasn't defined, like are they ions ? Metals in the elemental state ? Metals bound to sulfhydryl's of a protein ? Storage "areas" ? I don't know what a storage area is since area is two-dimensional. OK, I get it, it was put into laymans terms for ease of understanding. Maybe I was overly-critical
If SiO2 is capable of binding metals, how can silica be used in thin-layer chromatography involving transition metals ? The article leaves a lot of questions unanswered, I pointed out a few. I suppose most people don't even think about these things. Dr. Knight is obviously a great contributor to our body of knowledge and apparently also a Longhorn and I rarely if ever get into squabbles with my own. I tend to be precise with words more than most and often irk people by asking them what they just read. Again, I'm not talking about the DE article. People come away with a conclusion after a reading and I poke them with questions about what it really said or didn't say.
If DE "binds" metals, my best guess is that it does so akin to how a zeolite functions, porosity and surface energy interactions. I don't personally consider that to be "binding" however in the sense of chelation which is what is mostly discussed when eliminating metals from the body. It'd be more of an adsorption mechanism akin to chlorella. Silica, being insoluble, how can it get to the bloodstream ? Nobody claimed it did, although I think it was implied yet the blood is a coloid and 10 microns is fairly large. But if DE manages to get into the blood and bind "metals", does it also get the good ones like Cr, Mo, Cu, Zn, etc ? Probably.
If a reasonable mechanism of how SiO2 can "bind" metals were proposed, I could become a believer, but in addition to the mechanism I'd also need to know that is meant by "metals" because that word can mean many things.
Yes I am a skeptic. Wouldn't it suck if everybody always agreed ? We'd never learn anything and would be a bunch of robots hailing to the chief. Isn't freedom wonderful ? Yes, people sometimes mis-interpret others but that's the price of communicating on the internet. Having been skeptical a long time and having asked a lot of questions, I've upset some folk in the short term but almost always they learn from it and are made to become even better. If Dr. Knight says it works, it probably does but I want to know why and how. If we know why and how, then it becomes possible to engineer materials that are even superior to the naturally-occuring material. Pore sizes and distribution could be engineered and one could presumably come up with a material that's selective for say, sulfhydryl-bound mercury. Wouldn't that be something ?