Malcom: Yes, the issue at hand is not the validity of the studies done by the fine microbiologists at Brigham Young University, but rather the administration's attempt to seperate the University from the study done.
The testing was not sponsored by the university. Since the testing was done on university property, with university equipment, and done on university paid time, I believe that the university owns the work done, although they do not display any copyrights with the work ( which is part of the problem here ). BYU lawyers have been using strong-arm tactics to try to remove the University's name from the study... and more. They also want to reserve their copyright. However, they refuse to, from what I have seen, acknowledge the copyright in print, in a manner that fits the legal definition of copyright display and notification of infringement. This is certainly not an issue with the staff at BYU... I was told that the head microbiologist only wanted the study available through ASAP, as it was their product that was tested. He did not want other, perhaps inferior products, profiting from the work done -- especially since doing so is truly misrepresenting the work. This is certainly understandable, although while I would term ASAP silver an effective silver, it is hardly one of the best out there. The BYU study information will be forever available through our website. Currently, I simply give a brief synopsis, and link over to ASAP. If ASAP is ever forced to take the study down, I will relocate the data. The problem I have is not with the University's position. The problem I have is with trying to remove information from the public domain, and doing so with unethical methods. I'm a very strong freedom of speech advocate. I have quite a bit of information that I cannot release to the public domain... Respecting those who have done work, that, if it gained too much attention, might jeopardize the work being done. I see this as different from microbiologists granting newspaper interviews, and then a University trying to come up behind and clean it all up for political reasons. Best Regards, Jason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Stebbins" <s...@asis.com> To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:39 AM Subject: Re: CS>regulations > They didn't deny it, just insisted it was not for public consumption and any use > of it would be met with legal(istic) sanction. I believe Jason (silvermedicine ?? > site) has the whole bit including his response to the threat. > > Ian Roe wrote: > > > Hi: > > > > Hasn't the Brigham Young research report already been debunked? I thought > > the university had denied it entirely. > > > > Ian > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "James Osbourne, Holmes" <a...@cybermesa.com> > > To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:26 PM > > Subject: RE: CS>regulations > > > > > Go to argentumresearch.com Find some juicy quotes by Dr. Flick, and quote > > > him. Also, find the Brigham Young research report, and quote it. > > > > -- > > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > > > > Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org > > > > 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> > >
