On 13 Dec 97 at 20:34, Scott Berner wrote: > 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? <munch> > You still have not proven that it is worthy of belief, by the way. > Defining your terminology is not proof of a "threat". <munch> > 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.
Let's make it perfectly clear what we're arguing about here, Scott. I have CHOSEN to express my beliefs about certain aspects of colloidal silver using certain arguments and persuasive devices that I believed were appropriate to the ORIGINAL AUDIENCE, and would reassure *PAUL* that he was on the right track and encourage him to look further. *THAT* WAS MY PURPOSE! NOT to spread fear and doubt! NOT to define agyria as a *THREAT*! YOU have CHOSEN to find fault with my presentation, AND HAVE REPEATEDLY ACCUSED ME of making assertions THAT I HAVE *NOT* MADE! I CONSIDER YOUR BEHAVIOUR to have been unjustifiably rude. I DO take offense, sir. You have chosen to express yourself in a manner that *FAILS* to persuade me that you have my best interest at heart, or any one else's, and *ALIENATES* someone who wants to be your ally. Finally, after so much pissing and moaning you bring something constructive to the discussion: > 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." Good! So the SOTA site has a statement from a group that is trying to put a credible face on the massive confusion in the industry and offer some perfectly reasonable sounding answers to some of the accusations coming from the critics. If one could follow up on their statements to their original sources, one could begin to establish their authority in such a way as to be credible to OUTSIDERS as well as those of *us* who already know what's going on. > 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! SCOTT! Stop right there, and LISTEN! YOU are the one accusing me of saying this. YOU are WRONG! I have no "complaint about this material." AND I AM NOT SAYING that a "threat worthy of bellief" exists. Those are YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE! > Now that CS is gaining popularity, the propaganda mills are working > overtime! And you are making strafing runs on those who would be your friends, why? Because you fear they are part of some propaganda campaign? > Enough of us have used enough of these solutions to not require > "more research"! Of *course* we need more research. Every little bit of "scientific" proof we can get will build our credibility and make it *easier* to combat the propaganda machine. But we *don't* need more research to continue to do what we're already doing! > By the way, my wife just completed abdominal surgery two weeks > ago. She refused the IV antibiotics and has been using only > colloidal silver ... Not one problem!!! She is doing fine... Praise God, Scott. May she continue to heal. > 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. What "great guru of High Voltage clear colloidal silver" are you talking about here? > This is NOT electrolytically 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. :) And I didn't explain in absolute and excruciating detail that the OSHA regs I was siting were for metallic silver BECAUSE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY in the context of the argument I was making. And you even agree with my argument, here! Fercryinoutloud! If you don't think my arguments are good enough, make better ones of your own, on your own, and stop attacking. >This is a recent upgrade in your position. :) No, it is a recent upgrade in your skills of comprehension. :) You see, Scott, I can make snide insults and hide them behind smiley faces, too. > Congratulations! Solid ground at last! You shifted around enough > to finally settle in! :) No, I explained myself in little bitty words until you began to suspect that I might not be a total idiot, and that you'd better try to find some solid ground before everybody gets tired of you. > 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. :) And with my technical and scientific background I can distinguish between scientific rigor and personal advocacy. THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR PLACE! > 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! And you continue to beat your straw man into the mud. >> 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 choose to destroy our chances for getting CS into the mainstream forever, they won't even *have* to be credible. They've got power, authority, and money on their side. And whether *you* buy the propaganda or not will not make a damn bit of difference. > 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. The court of public opinion doesn't work like that either! They won't have to *prove* a thing. > You need to have more experience in this matter on a personal > level. It will change your outlook! And YOU, Scott, will have to acknowledge that OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS OF APPROACHING the subject. You had better pray to God that quality scientific research is advanced as fast as possible, while powerful testimonials and evangelization carry the popular front. And, in the meantime, LEARN to work *with* your allies! > 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? If you take 1/2 gallon to be roughly two liters, about 10 milligrams per day, or about 3.5 grams of silver per year. And, since Beck is still appearing in public and does not look like Papa Smurf, it is *obvious* that the body can excrete at least that much. Once again, you weigh in with *additional* information that *adds* something constructive to the discussion. TOO BAD that you didn't address these comments to Paul, who originally asked the question, instead of trampling all over me for not making *your* arguments for you! >> 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! :) Snide. >> 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! > ... And here's the nub of the argument. YOU DECIDE that I'm not being aggressive enough in my claims. I guarantee you that your approach will ALIENATE *some* people that *I* might reach, and vice-versa. Which is why there is ROOM FOR MORE THAN ONE ADVOCATE and MORE THAN ONE APPROACH! > We have researchers, there are over a hundred RIGHT ON THIS LIST!!! > And THOUSANDS OFF THE LIST!!! NOBODY IS TURNING GRAY!!!! <still > smiling> And still accusing me of believing our critics. And still beating on the strawman. >> This implies that the Sota folks have located or conducted >> research ... 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. Of what!? The Journal of the American Medical Association? <guffaw> Or something really credible? Okay, I know, it's the SOTA newsletter. Look. You are citing stuff from SOTA, who are in competition with Elixa, who are in competition with ... And so on... Nobody is completely right, and nobody is without bias. So ADD these things to the debate and do something to HELP rather than attacking people! > >>> "....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. :) I don't think testosterone should have any role in whether or not you are going to be civil to others. > Remember the post I made that called attention to the lies of this > man on his WEBPAGES??? A liar is not "credible". I *looked* for such a post and couldn't find it in my archives. So either I deleted it or it was before I joined the list. > 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. You obviously have a very bad opinion of the man. And you *assume* that anyone who doesn't agree with you is in league with the devil. > 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> :) And rather than endless debate and discussion, you could offer an alternative voice WITHOUT BERATING OTHERS. >>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. I think you'd better re-read it, carefully. Because, based on that article, everything I have said about it and about him is true. If he has character flaws they don't show up there. Instead he gave a very well presented description of the state of CS mythology and fact, with minimal promotion of his own products. > He does have technical expertise in engineering, not chemistry > (obviously...tarnish is NOT silveroxide , but silversulfate), And he does *not* make such an erroneous claim in his article! Sheesh! > I don't need other experiences, just check out the things I > mentioned on his WEBPAGE... Which web page is that, Scott? Elixa's? Some other? How about a URL or a quote? > 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. I have not caught Lindemann in any lie. You have not given me enough information to convince me, yet. Maybe you will. > 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. I consider myself condemned by you. Are you happy? They hung Jesus on a cross because He wouldn't teach the way *they* wanted Him to. > 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! Okay, by your standards I'm unscrupulous, too. Your welcome. > I am sorry you don't share the convictions, Mike. Or maybe you > just need to think it through. Or maybe you are being arrogant. > 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" He cites the references he used for several of the statements he made in the article. That's the "supporting evidence" I'm talking about. Is it there or isn't it, Scott? Read the article and tell me again what my opinion of this man should be. Even if my direst enemy speaks the truth, it is still the truth. Here's the URL again: http://www.elixa.com/silver/lindmn.htm > 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. For cryin' out LOUD! Where on earth is this stuff at? The machines that Elixa sells cost $100 and $150!!! And they're the same low voltage systems that we all agree are perfectly fine. Are you even talking about the same person ???? Is this the same "great guru of High Voltage clear colloidal silver" that you were talking about before? >> 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! And the existence of commercially made colloidal silver generators is a GOOD THING! Just as there are some people who can't afford them, there are OTHERS who absolutely need the hand holding and convenience of the commercial product. And, other than your accusations, I haven't found any reason *not* to recommend the information in Lindemann's article, or the $100 or $150 or $75 CS machines I've seen on the web, in addition to our own designs and methods. > 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. :) We've always been more or less unified in our conclusions. I reserve the right to approach the subject in my own way and with my own voice. I appreciate information that adds to my understanding, but I deny being a liar for not knowing all there is to know, nor sharing your opinions on every matter. I think if you feel the need to discuss this further, it would be most courteous to the list to take it to private e-mail. > If you want to put Pete up on a pedestal, that is your right. The > Bible says Thou shalt have no other gods before Me...I am sticking > with a winner! :) You have chosen tactics that *failed* to accomplish what you think God wanted you to do. You have *not* brought anyone closer to the truth, but instead have sown dissention. Instead of enlightening a companion, you have driven him away. Jesus used more than one tone of voice. He rebuked the evil one and his servants with vigor and authority. And He guided the lowly with the greatest of gentleness. He also knew when to do which. > >God Bless Ya, > > > >Scott > > And you too. > PS..For those of us on the list "of faith",please keep my wife and > family in your prayers! Thanks! I will. Mike [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for himself... ]
