That brings back memory's of " Nine out of ten doctors smoke camels" Dave
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Dorothy Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. > > > >
