Reid: I enjoyed your comments. I certainly agree.
We know from personal research and personal experience that isolated silver is effective in-vivo against virii. The barrier doesn't seem to be the type, but rather, the location in the body and whether or not silver can be delivered to the infection site in great enough concentration, consistently, and for a long enough period of time to be effective. I have been following four recent cases of Hep C and three cases of HIV ( full blown AIDS ). The results, across the board, are very promising. The longest AIDS case I've followed has been a near-death scenario, with a complete restoration of health for a seven year period via colloidal silver use ( not an HIV negative, however ). I'm not certain I accept the reasoning that one should not nebulize for fear of spreading the infection. In a hospital setting, you don't "not use silver via a nebulizer" because you don't know if it works or not ( and simply stick to oral colloidal silver use ), you isolate the individual and take necessary precautions. If one knows they have this condition, then it is on the individual to be reasonably responsible with limitation of contact. If a person is not that responsible, then the philosophical point is irrelevant anyway. I never let academia get in the way of taking care of a condition with every possible method available. "It might not work" is not good enough for me. It never has been, and never will be. I would be more inclined to say that it might not work as well via oral use. This world is a very strange place. Do the needs of the many outway the needs of the few, or the one? Before people are allowed to make policy, or otherwise make decisions that can save or kill, I think this question should be accurately analyzed and answered. With Warm Regards, Jason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reid Harvey" <[email protected]> To: "silver list" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 9:34 PM Subject: Re: CS>A question for the scientifically inclined > CSEnthusiasts, > In discussing the risk of spreading SARS in exhaled droplets it would > seem to me there is an issue as to whether or not the treatment is for > prevention or for cure. For example, if we have a high degree of > certainty that an individual does not have SARS then it would seem quite > reasonable to be within their breething zone. > > And shouldn't we worry more that a person who may become infected > through the droplets is someone who should be nebulizing, but may not > be? As to the possibility that the virus may not be cleared up through > the use of CS, if this were true would it not be a first? For what > other virus has CS not indicated effective? > > My questions are just that, and not statements or any kind of challenge > to what others are saying. Thanks to all for sharing knowledge in these > worrisome times. > Reid > > David Bearrow said: > I wouldn't think it to be unsafe to nebulize. Armed with this > information we now know that one should nebulize alone so as to not > increase the risk of infecting someone else. Or one could rig up a > filter such as a tube with a CS soaked handkerchief rubber banded to the > end to exhale through. Or a tube snaked out through the window to exhale > through. There must be a way to reduce the risk of exhaling. But this > fact that one exhales the virus shouldn't stop you from nebulizing. > > > > -- > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > > Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org > > To post, address your message to: [email protected] > > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> >
