In a message dated 6/30/01 8:20:28 AM EST, so...@neo.rr.com writes: << Subj: Re: CS>Angyia Date: 6/30/01 8:20:28 AM EST From: so...@neo.rr.com (Solar) Reply-to: so...@neo.rr.com (Solar) To: silver-list@eskimo.com Hello larry, Saturday, June 30, 2001, 8:06:38 AM, you wrote: lt> Dear list lt> I also noticed the "CS protein"[ and the editorializing on alt.med. ] lt> What might be the reason that CS protein could cause angyia ? > Larry: There is a BIG difference between colloidal silver, and what disinformation propagandists are calling "colloidal silver protein". Actually, the proper terminology is "mild silver protein", or "strong silver protein". Mild silver protein contains over 20% silver, and the particles are so large that it appears as a "dark brown to black liquid, with shiney scales". Let's analyze this...... Mild Silver Protein= 20% silver content (0.20) 20 PPM colloidal silver= (0.000020) or 0.002% silver content Let's say that you consumed 1 ounce of mild silver protein. To get the same amount of silver from 20 PPM colloidal silver, one would have to consume 10,000 ounces. There are 128 ounces to a gallon, so you would have to drink (10,000/128) 78.125 gallons of 20 PPM colloidal silver. Let's put this another way. If you consumed 1 milliliter of mild silver protein, it would be the equivilant to consuming 10,000 milliliters of 20 PPM colloidal silver. 10 liters is 2.642 gallons. None of this even begins to address the differences in particle size. All of this comes down to the modern way of debating a point. If you don't have facts to backup your argument, or if the facts show that your side of the argument is on the loosing end, then introduce bullshit into the equation to cloud the issue! This is especially true when it concerns the "experts", and they are on the loosing end! Just take a good look at some of the arguments waged by "experts" such as the AMA, FDA, EPA, FBI, CIA, etc. when it comes to issues of personal freedom, and rights guaranteed under the constitution. In every case these "experts" try to cloud the issues with dumptrucks full of bullshit (that's a tipper lorrie for our friends out of the US). One must keep in mind that the pharmaceutical companies are NOT interested in health, only profit. They are only happy when they can patent a drug, and thereby have a total monopoly on it for 25 years. Oh, and if you want a real eye-opener, go to a university library and find out the publisher of med school periodicals and textbooks. Then go look them up, and see just how much of their stock is owned by the pharmaceutical companies. Not to mention that 80% of the FDA board that approves new drugs also hold major portions of stock in the various pharmaceutical companies.
Solar: I enjoyed reading your piece, and am inclined to agree with all of it, but I try resist accepting things at face value, ESPECIALLY when it supports my general view of how government, and big business actually are run. For example, have you **personally** researched your statement, "... go to a university library and find out the publisher of med school periodicals and textbooks. Then go look them up, and see just how much of their stock is owned by the pharmaceutical companies. Not to mention that 80% of the FDA board that approves new drugs also hold major portions of stock in the various pharmaceutical companies." In other words, have you verified those statements? Please give us more details if possible. Roger -- 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...@eskimo.com>
