Great idea Steve, however: We might be hard pressed to come to agreement on a uniform document. For instance, many believe that CS alone is a fine treatment for acne. However, some of us believe quite the opposite. In cases of true acne, the problem is not in the skin, but the liver. CS in distilled water disturbs the PH balance of the skin, and therefore acts as an irritant to normal tissue that is inflamed. The benefit of colloidal silver ( in it's "ionic" state ) lasts for about thirty seconds. The residual silver left on/in the tissue is not a sufficient quantity to continue to kill replicating bacteria, and the PH balance remains disturbed. In my experience, three out of three people with chronic acne experienced no improvement and increased irritation, using three different types of colloidal silver. However, colloidal silver used internally may certainly have a positive benefit on the condition.
In contrast to this, however, we have the numerous reports of people who have experienced very rapid cures of the same condition using colloidal silver. The same can be said for many conditions, and it can be very difficult to isolate the variables. I don't think we've ever gotten past the first variable: How the CS is made, and with what strength. In my opinion, what we need is data. We need to do a study, of say, 50 people with condition X, using the same CS. I, for one, would be more comfortable stating something like, out of 50 people with chronic acne, 5% of the people experienced a complete cure, 45% experienced positive results, and 50% experienced no benefit. Even at 5%, that would make colloidal silver the most successful treatment available. Furthermore, we would be able to better isolate variables. I would trust people such as are on this list ( whereas I won't even look at the numbers from someone like Robert Becker ) to do such a study. There is a difference between irrefutable evidence and scientific evidence. I for one am more than satisfied with irrefutable evidence. ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve geigle <sgei...@home.com> To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 3:49 PM Subject: Re: CS>Re: Documented CS Successes under Controlled Conditions > Great idea, Roger. Say, why can't members of the silver list somehow > produce a document explaining the benefits of CS and make it available at no > cost (now there's a radical idea) to all members and others as they wish. > Dumb idea or what? ;-) > > Cheers, > > Steven Geigle > Cedar Mill, Oregon, USA > sgei...@home.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <rogalt...@aol.com> > To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 8:01 AM > Subject: Re: CS>Re: Documented CS Successes under Controlled Conditions > > > > Thaks very much Marshall. I'm sure a combined effort from the "CS list" > would > > yield several times more published CS results. Perhaps we could request > each > > list subscriber to contribute at least one published positive or negatve > > (which would be at least as interesting) CS report. > > > > Roger Altman > > > > > > -- > > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > > > > To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: > > silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com > > with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > > > > To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@id.net> > > > >
