In a message dated 10/2/2001 11:46:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
> Subj:Re: CS>$5.00 for your CS, 2.4 cents for mine > Date:10/2/2001 11:46:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: [email protected] (Reid Harvey) > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</A> > To: [email protected] (silver digest) > > > > > Marshall, > You asked for the definition of 'optimized CS,' and here is my opinion: > 'optimized CS' is a CS for which the producer has made a studied and > deliberate effort to get a high quality product. > > While we're at it maybe I should attempt another definition: The term > 'inferior CS' appears to be an oxymoron, since everybody agrees that > this still gives great health benefits. Perhaps we should be talking > about 'optimized CS' and 'non-optimized CS.' > Just my 2.4 cents. > Reid > Reid: I believe it is far more complicated than that when you factor in the "percentage particulate" in a given CS brew, and the area in the body where the infection resides. For example, suppose you have intestinal flu. Is it not possible that a CS brew that has a GREATER percentage particulate and/or has a LARGER particle size would not work better because more of it would remain intact by the time it reaches the intestines? OTOH, a highly ionic prep might work much better for lung infections when a small CS residence time at the infection site requires a rapid interaction inherent with silver ions. Could it be that it's far too early in the game to even BEGIN to talk about **optimized** CS, but it is never too early to appreciate the value of research so that we can unravel the mysteries of CS. It is beyond me why some of you out there get upset when technical discussions get too "technical". If anyone have a better way to gain a more complete understanding of CS let them regale us with their insight. Roger
