MSM is a crystalline powder that dissolves readily in water. It's a powerful wetting agent, so it may help cs penetrate where it otherwise might not. I don't know what effect MSM alone would have on candida, but I can tell you cs kills it dead, along with any other fungal critters hanging out in your body. After only a few weeks of using cs orally, my fungus-ridden feet look and feel so clean I don't recognize them.
A slug of cs after drinking beer or eating bread, I find, takes away the bloat and totally eliminates the once-inevitable gaseous effect later on, caused by yeast (candida is yeast). Probably shouldn't drink beer and eat bread, but, ah well. MSM is such good stuff, it can't hurt to mix it with cs, but be sure to include plenty of vitamin C if you're using MSM, as it seems to greatly enhance its benefits. No, I don't know why or how much is needed. Sam Earle You're entitled to my opinion. mailto:[email protected] Wednesday, October 06, 1999, 7:44:14 PM, you wrote: > Hi everyone, > Can someone tell me the value of mixing CS with MSM and bottling it. Would > it be more beneficial to use CS on it own or MSM alone. Also why cant MSM > be used in liquid form? > Also shich product would be the mst beneficial to treat candida? > Regards > Carmen > ----- Original Message ----- > From: M. G. Devour <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 9:01 PM Subject: Re: CS>>Now it's acid? >> > 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]> >>
