On 13 Dec 97 at 0:22, Scott Berner wrote: > Mike, I have some problems with a couple of things you just > published, nothing personal. :)
Yeah! I can see that. Simmer down Scott. He di'n mean nuthin' by it. He wuz jest a'talkin. Now put the gun away before ya git us all inta trouble! <big grin> I had ventured the statement: >> The only complication of electrolytically made colloid of pure >> silver that even seems a credible threat at all is called argyria > "credible threat"? credible, adj., that can be believed; reliable. I formulated the sentence as "that even seems a credible threat AT ALL" (emphasis added) in response and in *contrast* to the concerns Paul was raising of toxicity and heavy metal poisoning. Compared to toxicity and heavy metal poisoning from known toxic salts in high concetrations and quantities, agyria, which can be caused by ingestion of sufficient quantities of silver metal, IS A LOGICAL *POSSIBILITY* THAT AT LEAST SHOULD BE ANSWERED. And I proceed to answer that possible concern with an argument that makes minimal claim upon issues that can only be answered by non-existant research. That is, by published standards of OSHA and other agencies, known toxicity levels for pure silver are at least two orders of magnitude higher than we use. So independent of ANY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS of safety on our part, we are *already* able to show that CS is not dangerous. This is a *conservative* and *UNDERSTATED* way of making the point that CS is safe and the nay-sayers are full of *shit*. > What are you basing this statement on Mike? Since the statement I'm making is that agyria is *NOT* an actual threat, although, logically, it *might* be a credible threat and is worth studying before dismissing it, I would say I don't have to belabor the point. We all know the answer already. > Are there cases of argyria ... Any cases connected to the type of > colloidal solutions we are using? ... Of course not. And I didn't say their were, right? <grin> > I believe this is an unfounded concern in regard to the type of > solution generally made by those on this list. Absolutely correct! See, we agree! <grin getting bigger> > Can you prove otherwise? If you have documentation to the > contrary, please bring it forward. If it is "credible", let us have > it please! This is a point worth discussing, Scott. <turning serious, now> You see, if we say CS is *safe*, we are making a positive claim which implies we have *proof* of our assertion. Now the other side *can't* prove their claims that CS is dangerous, either! But do *we* have studies that verify there is *NO* danger at any levels? Unless somebody has fed CS to test animals at levels sufficient to cause argyria with *other* forms of silver and demonstrated that argyria did *not* result, then we have no positive basis for our claim that it is safe. Unless *you* or somebody you know of have already been the guinue pig for us? Hmmm? However we *can* say something like "there are no documented cases of argyria from CS to the best of our knowledge!" If you have come across information that *would* allow us to extend our claims further, please point the way. I would welcome it! Furthur along I wrote: >> The largest recommended dosages I've seen for CS are in the range >> of several milligrams of silver per day. That is 100 times less >> than the toxic range of several hundred milligrams. This means >> you would have to take those high dosages for a hundred days to >> get in the same ballpark, and *that* assumes that none of the >> silver is excreted. Here is where I mention, in passing, the issue of excretion of the silver. There are limits to how much detail even *I* want to go into in a posting to a newbie! <G> And once again, the argument demonstrates that even *IF* CS was as dangerous as other forms of silver, which we don't think it is, we aren't *using* enough to have to worry about it! So the point is rendered moot... > According to Sota Instruments: The larger particles (non colloidal, > and much larger in particle size) can be a problem for the lymph to > remove from the body, these can be stored in the skin , resulting > in a graying effect. It is NOT TOXIC (if it is pure silver), in any > case (and can be reversed through chelation therapy). This implies that the Sota folks have located or conducted research that shows there is a maximum size silver particle that can be easily excreted? Or is this a knowledgeable assumption by someone competent to make the statement? If it can be backed up, it's good news. > There is NO reason to anticipate anything like this even remotely > occuring from using a good colloidal solution. Junk solutions (bad > water, impure silver, additives, etc,etc), now these are another > matter entirely. These are NOT pure colloidal silver solutions!! > Let's not confuse things. I was trying to keep it simple! <small, plaintive voice> > >Try reading the article by Peter Lindemann at the following URL: > > > > http://www.elixa.com/silver/lindmn.htm > > > >He has the best understanding of the CS situation that I've seen. > >He's not impartial, as his company is selling a CS making unit. But > >he sticks to the truth, states his opinions with supporting evidence, > > "....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. 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. If he is one of Satan's minions based on some *OTHER* experience you have had with him, fine! But I've only read this article, and had a brief e-mail exchange with him in which he answered a few questions I had about what he had written. For the purpose for which I cited the article -- to direct Paul to an *accurate* overview of the CS debate -- Lindemann's article is a very good place to start. Methinks I've accidentally stumbled into one of your hot buttons, Scott, old man! Sorry! > I posted a statement concerning this website and caught him in > several lies...one of them being that DC generated yellow CS > solutions turn into clear solutions, having had their silver drop > out of solution within a period of 2-3 weeks. This is a bald faced > lie! Why do you ignore it? IN THE ARTICLE I CITED, Lindemann does not make this claim. He mentions "settling" in his discussion of preparations made *with* electrolytes that have particles that are too large. He also mentions *good* solutions that become clear when the particles first disperse and *may* turn yellow if their concentration is high enough. Nowhere does this article contain the statement you are attacking. > There are others on this list who have had solutions retain their > color and particles for well over 6 months ... OVER A YEAR! ... 6 > + month old silver... I don't appreciate Lindeman's lies on these > matters. I'm shocked that you would promote them! If I saw lies, I wouldn't be promoting them. There may be problematic claims elsewhere on the Elixa web site. I've found one or two without having explored every nook and cranny. But this article is the only thing I found on the site that is attributed to Lindemann. > His claims all lead one to purchase his expensive generators. "Not > impartial"? That is a real understatement!! Hey, that's the reason for Elixa's site! If you are saying he wrote or approves of it all, than I guess you're right. And if your citing other interactions you've had with him, I'm out of that loop. >> and is one of the few people in the business who seems >> technically literate enough not to make stupid mistakes when >> writing about it. > > An untrustworthy intellectual can be dangerous. All I said is he knew how to spell, and could tell a milligram from a microgram. I make no claims as to his morals or motives. I also said: > >Just don't believe anybody's claims unless you can verify them > >yourselves. If their assumptions are different from ours by two > >orders of magnitude then they don't know what their talking about! And that's the rub, Scott. Lindemann's assumptions are *extremely* close to our own, at least in the article he wrote that I cited. At some point we have to rely on people's judgement to discern among conflicting claims. If what he says disagrees with us on minor points but is substantially correct, *and* it is a useful tool for promoting our point of view, then we should use it! If he's really our enemy, then he sure gave us a pretty good tool! > Like I said, nothing personal Mike old friend. We need to keep the > story straight! I don't know about the story, but my knickers were sure in a twist! AHHHH! That's better! <smile> God bless, Mike [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for himself... ]
