Roger, It does seem that 25% of the animals developed cancer... I can only assume that the dose was so high as to be ridiculous or some other mitigating factor caused the EPA to interpret the findings as providing no proof of cancer cause.
Ivan. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 21 November 2000 03:48 Subject: CS>Re: Evidence of Long Term CS Toxicity > In a message dated 11/20/00 8:35:00 AM EST, [email protected] writes: > > << Subj: Re: CS>Fw: colloidal silver > Date: 11/20/00 8:35:00 AM EST > From: [email protected] (Ivan Anderson) > Reply-to: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > No, Tray I don't mind. > > But I might have been a little more expansive (and corrected the > spelling) if I had known you were to use it in reply. > > Cheers > Ivan. > >> > > Ivan: I did a quick read of the EPA's silver toxicity reference you > mentioned. Did I miss something, or did one study show there WAS a connection > between CS and cancer while the other studies did not? Should I assume that > the EPA simply reached their conclusion from a "weight of the evidence" > perspective? Roger -- 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] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
