The FDA has only one level of approval. "Proven safe and effective" or
"Not proven safe and effective" [which doesn't mean that it's not safe or
ineffective..it's just not proven to be otherwise]
The difference lies in the approved proof, that being triple blind studies
costing millions. A million testimonies don't matter to them without the
triple blind study and the FDA doesn't do studies.
A grass roots movement hasn't the money. On the other hand, a grass roots
movement doesn't care what the FDA says and does what it wants to while
calling it whatever the lawyers want them to call it. What's in a name?
It's too simple to regulate the activity. Silver itself will always be a
legal substance...might as well outlaw iron. So all they can do is
regulate the names.
A war of words. An attempt to control concepts.
But people have this nasty tendency to have their own ideas and do what
works no matter what.
If the ideas are valid, eventually they spread as an undercurrent to
envelope the whole culture leaving the nay sayers to piss in the wind.
Once upon a time chiropractors were witch doctors. Accupuncture was magick.
The monster creates the back that things go on behind while people
'Babble-on'.
The change in landscape goes unnoticed till it becomes overwhelmingly
there to trip on.
Ken
At 10:42 AM 12/21/01 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>
I have some questions regarding consistency in making colloidal silver but
first tell me this. If CS is as good as we think it is, why can't we
demonstrate the results to the FDA and get their approval on some level at
least. If they approve of it for any purpose at any level then in order to
keep their approval, wouldn't consistency be a major concern? Is the
INCONSISTENCY the real reason they won't approve it? Almost every person
who makes CS has their own little quirks that they say makes their's better
or stronger or purer. Some stir others don't. Some regulate current and
voltage some don't. In my opinion, it would be acceptable if the generators
cost a lot more than they do AS LONG AS the end product was the same
regardless who made it. It seems as though we act like a covey of quails
and go off in all directions with our methods. Isn't there some way to
decide once and for all the exact method to make it so it will be a
consistent quality and purity? If we could accomplish that, it seems to me
that the FDA might be more inclined to look seriously at it. Just some
thoughts from----
Wildwood
-------Original Message-------
From: <mailto:silver-list@eskimo.com>silver-list@eskimo.com
Date: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:23:16 AM
To: <mailto:silver-list@eskimo.com>Silver List
Subject: Re: CS>CS & Spa
** Kathy,
NO!! Keep them coming! There's gotta' be more people like us on the list!
Maybe they're just timid and sitting back reading, hoping for answers.
As I read your posts, I enjoy the fact there is someone here who maintains
my level of CS knowledge. DON'T STOP ASKING QUESTIONS.
Even though I've been messin' around with CS for a couple years, it hasn't
been a continual study, so my understanding, deep does not go ;-)
Marilyn~~
< I apologize if the list feels I am asking too many questions or if the
questions are dumb or simple.
Thank You,
Kathy Neff
____________________________________________________
<http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=540> IncrediMail - Email has
finally evolved - <http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=540>Click Here
<<<<
--
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>
