Yes but if you think about some of these so-called scientific tests Neville, I think yours (and mine) are probably a lot more true and un-biased. After all, most of them take things out of context and even on some occasions, deliberately lied as to the efficacy and safety of their products. Cigarettes spring to mind here i.e. the tobacco industry did 'trials' which actually 'proved' tobacco was GOOD for us, would you please! And if you go into it, in some (very rare) instances, it actually *can* be, but not in MOST cases. With EIS I think it is *more* often beneficial than it is not. dee
On 27 Jan 2010, at 15:33, Neville Munn wrote: > My sentiments exactly, and to that end I remain 'independant' of the > concensus of opinion, both here and anywhere else, and remain unconvinced > EIS, as produced and consumed by those who know what they are doing, has any > connection with argyria. From all literature and published material > available in the public domain I have come across, and I emphasise all > information *I* have come across, I am somewhat surprised that such learned > people on this List maintain the suggestion that argyria is a possibility > with the use of EIS in it's purest form. I believe there are simply too many > things going against that proposition when one takes into account all the > unknowns in relation to product, an individuals lifestyle, diet, habitat, > supplement consumption, praps even medicinals etc etc etc. >
