>Greetings to the Silver-List,
>
>and Hi Mike!
>
>
>>I had ventured the statement:
>>>> The only complication of electrolytically made colloid of pure
>>>> silver that even seems a credible threat at all is called argyria
>>
>>> "credible threat"?
>>
>>credible, adj., that can be believed; reliable.
>>
>
>Yes Mike, we know what credible means. Something worthy of belief,
according to Webster's dictionary. You are right on that one. But is it
credible to believe that all electrolytically produced silver solutions are
a "threat" in this fashion??
>NO! You are a big one for not planting seeds of doubt and fear, I thought.
Why start now?
>
>
>>I formulated the sentence as "that even seems a credible threat
>>AT ALL" (emphasis added) in response and in *contrast* to the
>>concerns Paul was raising of toxicity and heavy metal poisoning.
>>
>
>"that even seems worthy of belief", then one should believe it, no?
>On this basis, if it is "worthy of belief", and one is seeking information
on the subject, should not one believe it?
>
>You still have not proven that it is worthy of belief, by the way.
Defining your terminology is not proof of a "threat".
>
>>Compared to toxicity and heavy metal poisoning from known toxic
>>salts in high concetrations and quantities, agyria, which can be
>>caused by ingestion of sufficient quantities of silver metal, IS A
>>LOGICAL *POSSIBILITY* THAT AT LEAST SHOULD BE ANSWERED.
>>
>
>It is only logical if one does the same things that were done to get those
results in the first place. Using true pure colloidal solutions did not
cause argyria in these studies.
>
>Here is the quote from Sota Instruments and their newsletter (they
manufacture and sell Beck's devices and with his stamp of approval on all).
>
>"WHAT DETERMINES TOXICITY?"
>"There are no reports of silver toxicity - argyria or darkening of the
skin - with modern-day colloidal silver produced electrically. A
spokesperson for the newly-formed Colloidal Association of America, told us
that toxicity in the past from silver compounds such as silver nitrates,
silver iodides and silver bromides was a result of injection. These
compounds had larger particle sizes of silver for the lymph system to deal
with. In order to get rid of these larger particles, the lymph system
pushed them out through the skin. Once silver is exposed to light, of
course, it darkens. Thus darkening of the skin or argyria."
>
>If you have a complaint about this material I suggest you take it up with
Sota, or the C.A.A. Until you prove otherwise I will stand on it, it is
totally consistent with what we have experienced over almost 4 years of
making this solution and using large quantities (totally without any
adverse effects due to silver "toxicity"). The "threat worthy of bellief"
does NOT exist! It is the form of the silver, and the method of use that
determine "toxicity". The EPA Poison Control Center did not even have a
listing for silver toxicity as of three years ago! Now that CS is gaining
popularity, the propaganda mills are working overtime!
>
>
>
>>And I proceed to answer that possible concern with an argument that
>>makes minimal claim upon issues that can only be answered by
>>non-existant research.
>
>
>Enough of us have used enough of these solutions to not require "more
research"!
>
>By the way, my wife just completed abdominal surgery two weeks ago. She
refused the IV antibiotics and has been using only colloidal silver. She
has been using the concentrated solution and guessing at the concentration.
She has had mandatory blood tests at the hospital before her release, and
they were expecting her to have serious problems without their "wonderful
wonder drugs". Not one problem!!! She is doing fine and has been back at
work full time for a week now. The staff at the hospital was amazed! We
thank God, and the silver He led us to! I could care less what anyone else
thinks on this matter. It is 24 VDC generated colloidal silver, by the way,
for all those fans of the great guru of High Voltage clear colloidal
silver. Stuff you can make on your counter for pennies. We don't need more
research.
>
>
>>
>>That is, by published standards of OSHA and other agencies, known
>>toxicity levels for pure silver are at least two orders of magnitude
>>higher than we use. So independent of ANY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS of
>>safety on our part, we are *already* able to show that CS is not
>>dangerous. This is a *conservative* and *UNDERSTATED* way of making
>>the point that CS is safe and the nay-sayers are full of *shit*.
>>
>
>This is NOT ectrolytically produced silver OSHA is referring to!!!
>You are comparing apples and oranges!! They are full of manure, even if it
was,
>I will give you that much. :)
>
>
>>> What are you basing this statement on Mike?
>>
>>Since the statement I'm making is that agyria is *NOT* an actual
>>threat, although, logically, it *might* be a credible threat and is
>>worth studying before dismissing it, I would say I don't have to
>>belabor the point. We all know the answer already.
>>
>
>This is a recent upgrade in your position. :)
>
>>> Are there cases of argyria ... Any cases connected to the type of
>>> colloidal solutions we are using? ...
>>
>>Of course not. And I didn't say their were, right? <grin>
>>
>>> I believe this is an unfounded concern in regard to the type of
>>> solution generally made by those on this list.
>>
>>Absolutely correct! See, we agree! <grin getting bigger>
>>
>
>Congratulations! Solid ground at last! You shifted around enough to finally
>settle in! :)
>
>
>
>>> Can you prove otherwise? If you have documentation to the
>>> contrary, please bring it forward. If it is "credible", let us have
>>> it please!
>>
>>This is a point worth discussing, Scott. <turning serious, now>
>>
>>You see, if we say CS is *safe*, we are making a positive claim which
>>implies we have *proof* of our assertion.
>
>
>Four years of personal testing, wonderful results, no adverse effects,
that is proof enough for me. From what you have shared, it seems you are
just getting started with your research. :) There is not one single person
on this list that has the symptoms of argyria. If so, please speak up.
There are over a hundred of us. Some of us have given this solution to
hundreds of people and taught hundreds more, not one report of argyria to
date! I know of at least ten people who use a minimum of two ounces a day
(5ppm) and have done so for years...Guess what....No argyria!! Not one
negative reaction, NO TOXICITY!! And much to the chagrin of the "powers
that be" it did not cost us 100 million dollars in research funds, and
1,000 years in the lab to make sure we did "enough" research.
>
>
>>ow the other side *can't*
>>prove their claims that CS is dangerous, either! But do *we* have
>>studies that verify there is *NO* danger at any levels?
>>
>
>You can't say there are "no dangers at any levels" for pure water (you
would drown), pure air (you'd pop), pure sunlight (you'd burn). :) This
orientation is NOT REALISTIC!!! Not one pharmaceutical synthetically
manufactured and promoted by the AMA "whores" (excuse the directness
please) can hold up to that test either, by the way!!!!!!!
>
>>Unless somebody has fed CS to test animals at levels sufficient
>>to cause argyria with *other* forms of silver and demonstrated that
>>argyria did *not* result, then we have no positive basis for our
>>claim that it is safe. Unless *you* or somebody you know of have
>>already been the guinue pig for us? Hmmm?
>>
>
>If you think like the mindset of those who are the persecutors of the
alternative medical movement, but if these things were so easily proved
against electrolytically produced true pure colloidal silver, you can bet
your bottom dollar THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY NOW!!! All it takes is a
little common sense, and a bit of wisdom in regard to how the world really
works.
>
>
>>However we *can* say something like "there are no documented cases
>>of argyria from CS to the best of our knowledge!"
>>
>
>None from true pure colloidal silver solutions Period! Until proven
otherwise, that is the bottom line. Even if they come up with phoney lab
results, until it is proven by credible people, not in any way connected or
under the influence of the medical establishment, count me out. I am not
buying it. After 4 years, I have seen too much good done with these
solutions, and nothing bad. The pharmaceutical companies have nothing like
that kind of record...."to the best of my knowledge".
>:)
>
>If they are going to claim foul, they will have to prove it. Until, we are
innocent till proven guilty! Too bad the courts don't work like that.
>
>>If you have come across information that *would* allow us to extend
>>our claims further, please point the way. I would welcome it!
>>
>
>You need to have more experience in this matter on a personal level. It
will change your outlook!
>
>
>>Furthur along I wrote:
>>>> The largest recommended dosages I've seen for CS are in the range
>>>> of several milligrams of silver per day. That is 100 times less
>>>> than the toxic range of several hundred milligrams. This means
>>>> you would have to take those high dosages for a hundred days to
>>>> get in the same ballpark, and *that* assumes that none of the
>>>> silver is excreted.
>>
>
>Here is one for your calculator, Mike. If Beck drinks 1/2 gallon of 5ppm
silver everyday for two years, how much silver is that per day, and how
much overall?
>
>
>>Here is where I mention, in passing, the issue of excretion of the
>>silver. There are limits to how much detail even *I* want to go into
>>in a posting to a newbie! <G>
>>
>
>Thank God for small favors! :)
>
>
>
>>And once again, the argument demonstrates that even *IF* CS
>>was as dangerous as other forms of silver, which we don't think it
>>is, we aren't *using* enough to have to worry about it! So the point
>>is rendered moot...
>>
>
>Ok ...so let's just use a little cyanide everyday, just enough to keep
below the levels of toxicity. :( Weak arguement! For someone who is looking
for some answers, and something that can really help them, it is too weak!
There is no reason for it to be weak! We have researchers, there are over a
hundred RIGHT ON THIS LIST!!! And
>THOUSANDS OFF THE LIST!!! NOBODY IS TURNING GRAY!!!! <still smiling>
>
>>> According to Sota Instruments: The larger particles (non colloidal,
>>> and much larger in particle size) can be a problem for the lymph to
>>> remove from the body, these can be stored in the skin , resulting
>>> in a graying effect. It is NOT TOXIC (if it is pure silver), in any
>>> case (and can be reversed through chelation therapy).
>>
>>This implies that the Sota folks have located or conducted research
>>that shows there is a maximum size silver particle that can be easily
>>excreted? Or is this a knowledgeable assumption by someone competent
>>to make the statement? If it can be backed up, it's good news.
>>
>1-800-224-0242....the quote is from ISSUE 4, PAGE 3....BOTTOM OF 2ND COLUMN.
>
>>> There is NO reason to anticipate anything like this even remotely
>>> occuring from using a good colloidal solution. Junk solutions (bad
>>> water, impure silver, additives, etc,etc), now these are another
>>> matter entirely. These are NOT pure colloidal silver solutions!!
>>> Let's not confuse things.
>>
>>I was trying to keep it simple! <small, plaintive voice>
>>
>
>
>Right...can't it be simple and straight too? <btw..you don't OWN a "small
plaintive voice...who ya tryin ta kid?> :)
>
>
>
>
>>> >Try reading the article by Peter Lindemann at the following URL:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.elixa.com/silver/lindmn.htm
>>> >
>>> >He has the best understanding of the CS situation that I've seen.
>>> >He's not impartial, as his company is selling a CS making unit. But
>>> >he sticks to the truth, states his opinions with supporting evidence,
>>>
>>> "....sticks to the truth"? "...states his opinions with supporting
>>> evidence,"?????????????????
>>>
>>> Mike, I can hardly believe this fellow has you snowed like this!
>>
>>I'm sorry, Scott. This is uncalled for.
>>
>Sorry,
>I used the sweetest terminology I could come up with and not have my
masculinity challenged. :)
>
>Remember the post I made that called attention to the lies of this man on
his WEBPAGES??? A liar is not "credible". There is some good info in his
article you mentioned, and we ought to "glean" what we can, even if the
source is corrupt. Take the good and keep it, throw away the nonsense. We
have been doing this all along, NO? You built him up too high, and a newbie
doesn't have the understanding to figure it out easily, even those who have
been around for a while can get confused.
>Those who are ill don't have the energy to go round and round with this
debate and discussion, they NEED SOMETHING THAT WORKS RIGHT NOW!! Let's
make it clear, straight, AND SIMPLE. OK? <still smiling> :)
>
>
>>I just re-read and marked up Lindemann's article. Other than a
>>handful of places where I might quibble with him, THIS ARTICLE is a
>>good articulation of the situation surrounding colloidal silver as we
>>know it and use it.
>>
>
>Ok, I will re-read it myself. He does have technical expertise in
engineering, not chemistry (obviously...tarnish is NOT silveroxide , but
silversulfate), but there is some worthwhile info there. You do know that
you can make the clear stuff for just pennies too, RIGHT? You don't need
his machine, RIGHT??
>
>
>>If he is one of Satan's minions based on some *OTHER* experience you
>>have had with him, fine! But I've only read this article, and had a
>>brief e-mail exchange with him in which he answered a few questions
>>I had about what he had written.
>>
>
>That is great, and you probably didn't even have to bend the knee. I don't
need other experiences, just check out the things I mentioned on his WEBPAGE..
>Lying to people about the efficacy of DC colloidal solutions is enough for
those who regard the work this list is involved in, and the truth in general.
>
>
>>For the purpose for which I cited the article -- to direct Paul to an
>>*accurate* overview of the CS debate -- Lindemann's article is a very
>>good place to start.
>>
>>Methinks I've accidentally stumbled into one of your hot buttons,
>>Scott, old man! Sorry!
>>
>
>I hope by the end of this discussion you will realize that I have
convictions about this matter. Those who hinder the efforts of others to
find answers to their health problems that are inexpensive and readily
available are worthy of condemnation. These unscrupulous tactics need to be
exposed for the benefit of others just learning about these matters. If
these folks come around to our kind of conviction, great!! Let's welcome
them aboard!
>
>
>I am sorry you don't share the convictions,Mike. Or maybe you just need to
think it through.
>
>
>>> I posted a statement concerning this website and caught him in
>>> several lies...one of them being that DC generated yellow CS
>>> solutions turn into clear solutions, having had their silver drop
>>> out of solution within a period of 2-3 weeks. This is a bald faced
>>> lie! Why do you ignore it?
>>
>>IN THE ARTICLE I CITED, Lindemann does not make this claim. He
>>mentions "settling" in his discussion of preparations made *with*
>>electrolytes that have particles that are too large. He also mentions
>>*good* solutions that become clear when the particles first disperse
>>and *may* turn yellow if their concentration is high enough. Nowhere
>>does this article contain the statement you are attacking.
>>
>
>I was not "attacking" the article, but your promotion of this fellow as a
man who
> "....sticks to the truth"? "...states his opinions with supporting
evidence",
>this is the same fellow that condemned DC solutions to a 2-3 week shelf life
>accross the board, used applied kinesiology to prove the superior
therapeutic power of his HV solutions, and claims we need to buy his 7-800
dollar machines to make a good dependable batch of CS. We should know
better and not stand for this. He has a right to do this, but we have an
obligation to expose it.
>
>
>>> There are others on this list who have had solutions retain their
>>> color and particles for well over 6 months ... OVER A YEAR! ... 6
>>> + month old silver... I don't appreciate Lindeman's lies on these
>>> matters. I'm shocked that you would promote them!
>>
>>If I saw lies, I wouldn't be promoting them.
>>
>>There may be problematic claims elsewhere on the Elixa web site. I've
>>found one or two without having explored every nook and cranny. But
>>this article is the only thing I found on the site that is attributed
>>to Lindemann.
>>
>>> His claims all lead one to purchase his expensive generators. "Not
>>> impartial"? That is a real understatement!!
>>
>>Hey, that's the reason for Elixa's site! If you are saying he wrote
>>or approves of it all, than I guess you're right. And if your citing
>>other interactions you've had with him, I'm out of that loop.
>>
>>>> and is one of the few people in the business who seems
>>>> technically literate enough not to make stupid mistakes when
>>>> writing about it.
>>>
>>> An untrustworthy intellectual can be dangerous.
>>
>>All I said is he knew how to spell, and could tell a milligram from a
>>microgram. I make no claims as to his morals or motives.
>>
>
>OOOOHHH BOY! Now if you HAD said that I would have had to agree with ya! :)
>
>
>>I also said:
>>> >Just don't believe anybody's claims unless you can verify them
>>> >yourselves. If their assumptions are different from ours by two
>>> >orders of magnitude then they don't know what their talking about!
>>
>>And that's the rub, Scott. Lindemann's assumptions are *extremely*
>>close to our own, at least in the article he wrote that I cited. At
>>some point we have to rely on people's judgement to discern among
>>conflicting claims. If what he says disagrees with us on minor
>>points but is substantially correct, *and* it is a useful tool for
>>promoting our point of view, then we should use it!
>>
>>If he's really our enemy, then he sure gave us a pretty good tool!
>>
>
>I wouldn't say he is our enemy, just a commercial predator looking to make
a buck and with little concern about twisting the truth to accomplish it.
What if we were just getting started and needing some real honest answers
fast? What if our kids were suffering and this kind of thing kept us from
getting what they needed because we could not afford it. How about if we
took money we needed and bought an expensive generator we could have done
without? Not everyone in this world has money to throw away,you know!
>
>>> Like I said, nothing personal Mike old friend. We need to keep the
>>> story straight!
>>
>>I don't know about the story, but my knickers were sure in a twist!
>>AHHHH! That's better! <smile>
>>
>>God bless,
>>
>
>Sorry about your knickers! I hope they recover! :) I am also glad we are
clarifying a lot in this discussion and more or less unified in our
conclusions, less I failed to read between the lines adequately. :)
>
>If you want to put Pete up on a pedistal, that is your right. The Bible
says Thou shalt have no other gods before Me...I am sticking with a winner! :)
>
>God Bless Ya,
>
>Scott
>
>PS..For those of us on the list "of faith",please keep my wife and family
in your prayers! Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth on Him should not perish , but have everlasting life."
