> Here's a site from a woman who believes an acid ph is preferable. > She lived to be 106 so what's that tell ya? > > http://www.alternativemedicine.com/digest/issue08/i08-a18.shtml > > Sharon >>
This stuff is always so tantalizing but frustrating. I'm in the middle of reading this article as I write this, and there's nothing terribly wrong with it, except that they're talking about how she measures the "energy" of people and foods to see if it's good or bad, rising or falling, etc. They don't give an explanation of how it's being measured or just *what* it is she's measuring! That's the kind of crap that spoils these things for me. How in the hell is someone going to be able to reproduce her results? Or is it a big secret for commercial reasons? Anyhow, I'll keep reading, since the conclusions she reaches may be interesting and useful however vague the description of her experimental methods happens to be in this article. ... a few minutes later ... Now I've read to the end of the article. Apparently the "determination board" is at least one method for checking these energy levels they talk about. It seems to be a plexiglas box with a protractor scale on the top and you're supposed to put a "witness" sample and the test sample on top of it in the circle. The description isn't totally clear, but it appears you're then supposed to dangle a silver pendulum they give you over the board and samples and read off the angle number it swings toward to see if the "energy" is good or not. Wow, sounds scientific! <NOT!> Oh, and how about this: "Make sure it is the old-fashioned, pure Chlorox; this is hydrochloric acid, not chlorine." Boy that's a concise and sensible statement that a chemist would understand and agree with! Err, sorry!!! <grin> Look, I'm stubbornly open minded on this stuff. I *want* to find out what works. In other words, I'm not willing to dismiss it just because *some* of the people writing about it are horribly inept, but it sure as hell doesn't move me towards belief, either. It's entirely obvious why so many people reject this stuff and it's not taken seriously outside our community. Heck, the other day I had to reassure my wife, the biologist, that I'm not being deceived by this sort of foolishness, but am trying to look past it to get to the interesting stuff. She knows me better than that, but reading some of it made her doubt *my* good sense. When you know the science behind some of this stuff reading articles like this are actually distasteful. It's no wonder we have problems getting our ideas considered. So, folks, if you read something and don't understand it there are at least *two* possible reasons why: You don't have the technical training to understand the terminology or science involved; You can't understand it because it's *not* understandable, either because it's bullshit, or presented so poorly that nobody could figure it out even if it was the gospel truth! Bottom line, Dr. Hazel Parcells' stuff sounds interesting enough, but keep your hip boots handy. If they've got the kind of info that would impress the open minded medical or scientific person it's *not* to be found in this article. It all comes back to the results. I know *some* of what's out there is actually valid. The fact that people get good results from some of these things is compelling. It's just so damned tiring to have to wade through the nonsense to get to it, though. Be well, Mike (feeling a bit weary this morning, I guess!) [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for myself... ] -- 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: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
