Bravo, C. Creel! This reply is superb. Horowitz accuses the government of using psychological operations tactics to induce panic in the public. In point of fact, it is he who is using such tactics for the purpose of peddling his books.
I am curious to know whether or not his claims about an "Experimental Cancer Virus Program" are true or not; if true, he would deserve credit for bringing out the facts. But given his self-promoting claims of "prophetic" powers -- such as "predicting" the anthrax attacks -- I have very serious doubts about most of his claims. The main point you make, quite well, is that we simply can not know how damaging SARS will prove to be, and the early evidence is scary enough to justify the remarkable global cooperation, for which we can certainly be grateful. BTW SARS living on various surfaces -- this makes the idea of carrying a small atomizer of CS for hands, face, eyes, and mouth particularly sensible in my view. I intend to get busy and do this for my family; it seems a cheap, sensible, and practical precaution, with great potential benefits and virtually no risk, based on what list members know of LVDC silver ion solutions. JBB C Creel wrote: > > [email protected] wrote on Horowitz: > > <<"...methanolic extracts of two little known berry bushes common to British > Columbia and the northwestern states. Amelanchier alnifolia and Rosa > nutkana---both members of the Rosaceae family of plants---were proven in > 1995 to completely protect cells grown in experimental cultures from > coronavirus attack..." for those who don't. http://cureforsars.net/ He's got > more to say here: http://sarsscam.com/>> > > A coronavirus found in humans in 1995 was most often a simple cold virus. > The SARS virus is a new mutation closer to 3 strains of animal coronavirus > than to a human coronavirus. It's also a heck of a lot more damaging. > > In herbalism and homeopathy, a person with symptoms of a cold would not be > treated the same way as a person with symptoms of pneumonia. Of course, > what do dentists know about virology? ### (see below) > > Horowitz writes: > > <<At this writing, SARS appears to have killed 54 people out of almost 1,400 > afflicted according to the World Health Organization, a death rate of less > than 4%. But since this only takes into account those ill enough to seek > medical help, the actual ratio of deaths to infections is certainly far > less. [This is a tremendous understatement.] > > In contrast, the 1918-1919 flu pandemic killed approximately a third of the > 60 million afflicted.>> > > ** I love this argument. It helps one rapidly sort those who aren't > thinking from those who are. > > Before SARS was better understood, healthcare workers were becoming ill to > the point that some hopitals had the majority of their physicians ill with > SARS. Contrast this to those coming in contact with a flu virus. Using his > figures, 60M were afflicted. With the virulence of SARS it would kill that > many or more if it became as widespread as the flu of 1918. > > The figures of 60 million afflicted and approximately 20 million dead come > after the fact. The 4% death rate for SARS cited by Horowitz when he wrote > this article is not figured using the same formula. The outcomes of most of > those cases at that time was unknown. If one wants to know the actual > mortality rate of an illness onew must look at how many people recovered > versus how many died. This changes the SARS figures drastically. > > Here are the cumulative mortality rate for mainland China from April 21 to > April 26 (the cumulative numbers for the time April 21-26 time period are 57 > deaths, 145 discharges): > > April 21 30.88% > April 22 30.68% > April 23 31.06% > April 24 28.30% > April 25 26.74% > April 26 28.22% > > If you're already thinking that one cannot base statistics on such a short > period of time, you're right. But this is what Horowitz did but he also > included unresolved cases in his figures. His figures are no more valid > than those above for understanding the true mortality rate of SARS. > > Horowitz said: > > <<"Surely no clinical trials matching Ribovirin with SARS had ever been > conducted. At best, then, this statement reflects either drug company > propaganda and/or health official speculations, " remarking on somethnig > written by Michael Fumento. > > Since when was Fumento a formal representative for medicine? In fact, > Fumento was wrong. When Ribavirin was used as the sole drug in first 138 > patients in Hong Kong's Prince of Wales Hospital, no patients improved. > Improvement came when high doses of steroids were added. But Horowitz > readily uses journalist Michael Fumento's statement. Why? Because it's > going to further his case with the majority of the public who don't stop to > think and process but decide what they believe based upon the emotions > evoked by what they are reading. Horowitz plays this card quite well. > > ### I played to people's emotions when referring to Horowitz by the medical > degree he has (DMD). In fact, Horowitz also has a MPH and a MA in Health > Education. > > IMO, Horowitz, for the most part,has become a nut and a media seeker. > He'll say what his followers want to hear. China quite willingly treats > with substances other than pharmaceuticals. If it was as simple as > Horowitz suggests we never would have heard of SARS. > > Regards, > Catherine > > -- > 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]>
