Hi Catherine;
Regarding the phrases: ("...but it
>has nothing what so ever to do with how it will behave inside the human
>body. All such studies fail to ever mention that fact,...")
What, then, is the point of even making Petrie dishes, much less making the
hundreds of thousands of researches within the medical field alone which
employ petrie dish experiments to explore the possible outcomes of various
hypotheses?
Should Petrie dishes be sold only to non-medical users?
Are all these researchers deceitful, or only those exploring the medical
applications of various forms of finely divided silver? Is the deceit
contained in the lack of specificity which the colloidal silver researchers
exhibit in presenting their clearly labelled in vitro experiments, or is it
contained in the implication that they fail to specifically state (in
contrast to the more relaxed requirements imposed on the rest of the
medical research community) That THEIR research is of course totally
inapplicable to any immediate human therapeautic concerns? Would THAT
statement be more accurate, or just more consonant with Mr. Key's agenda?
Perhaps, rather, the deceit is to be found in the rhetoric of Mr. Key's
categorically emphatic remarks: "...nothing what so ever ..." and: "All
such studies fail to ever mention that fact ..."
Let's proceed to the next statement, directly following the above: ("...
and in fact leave the
>reader with the false impression that it would work just as well inside the
>body. Nothing could be farther from the truth.")
Which readers are left with what false impression? Well, I'll coin the
phrase; "All the world are fools, excepting thee and me, and I sometimes
have my doubts about thee."
If you find this offensive and demeaning, consider how the rest of "...the
reader[s] ..." might also feel, and quite justifiably so.
Before I leave the rhetorical quagmire of Mr. Key's statement, I'd invite
you to comment on his remark that: "Nothing could be farther from the
truth...," in the context of the studies referred to, rather than the
context of Mr. Key's evaluation of all us readers' intellectual
ineptitude. In other words, do the in vitro studies indicating the high
efficacy of ionic and/or colloidal silver in Petrie dishes really establish
their total, categorical inapplicability to conditions of human
disease? That would indeed turn the research community on it's collective
head!
You may find Mr. Key to be an honest, helpful and dedicated person in his
response to your queries, and indeed he may well be, but his rhetoric
SUCKS!! That flaw, if no other, calls ALL of his remarks into serious doubt.
My concern here is not to use your posts as once-removed springboards to
attack Mr. Key's, rather I am dismayed that someone with your high
dedication and great research capacity would endorse, and thus give
greater weight to, such self-serving cant.
Take care, Malcolm
At 06:44 AM 3/2/03 -0800, you wrote:
Dear Malcolm,
You said:
<<Hi Catherine, I think it would be worthwhile for you to clarify and
delimit
your blanket approval of "this" to one or several of the statements and/or
dependent implications Frank Key makes in the first paragraph you quoted;
you can nit-pick it as well as I, the first three sentences alone...>>
** This is the statement to which I was referring:
>Killing power of ionic silver in a Petri dish may be interesting but it
>has nothing what so ever to do with how it will behave inside the human
>body. All such studies fail to ever mention that fact, and in fact leave
the
>reader with the false impression that it would work just as well inside the
>body. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Regards,
Catherine
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 1/21/03
