Hi Mike, Yes, I keep getting your message but apparently you don't get mine. An ion is an ion. The only difference between any CS and what you make is the ratio of ions to particulate and the particle size. If you make 100% ionic silver and I make 80% ionic and it is only the ions that do any good in the body, then the mix I make would only be 80% as effective as yours. And since there is no reason to not take enough to do the job effectively, you will never convince me that you can make any better ionic silver than anyone else. Just drink more of it no matter how it's made. Of course it's best to try to make the particulate portion of it be as small as possible in order to get more particles in a given measure but that's only fine tuning to me.
I believe your thinking is a bit clouded over the issue of your ions being better than any made using a different current density since it happened to work so well for you at the time. And have you ever considered that the shingles were on the way out when you hit them with the final amount of CS made using your new method? I had them too a few years ago and knocked it our with CS very quickly. The first time I had them I was given something by my Dr. ( Acyclovir I think) and it took some time to get rid of it. Second time I used CS and it didn't even form any blisters and the pain was gone in a couple of days. Regards, Trem ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Monett" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 7:07 PM Subject: Re: CS>Re: Nebulizing CS for SARS Redux > url: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m60357.html > Re: CS>Re: Nebulizing CS for SARS Redux > From: C Creel > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:32:04 > > > Dear Mike, > > [...] > > > I became involved with this group and actually had the opportunity > > to present CS to them during a conference call. At that time, my > > thoughts were running along the lines of nebulizing. > > > Since then, they've considered oral (very difficult because most > > patients are too ill to drink) and IV. They are really skeptical > > about the latter because I can't produce enough material that > > speaks of efficacy with this. > > > Thanks for your input, Mike. > > > Regards, > > Catherine > > Perhaps this may help give some more documentation that is needed. > > I was in a severe mold environment that compromised my immune > system. Previous to this, I never had reason to visit doctors, was > never hospitalized, and any injury healed very quickly. > > It took a long time to realize the effects the mold was having on my > body. By then it was too late. > > One of the effects is I got Shingles. > > Shingles is due to the chickenpox virus eveyone has as a child. > Medicine has no cure against it. The remedies that are recommended > have serious side effects. > > About 20 percent of the population of my age gets Shingles, but it > is unheard of in my family. I am the only one to have experienced > it. > > I started taking cs as soon as I found what it was. I posted a > detailed report (warning - unpleasant photos) > > http://www.geocities.com/mrmonett/shingles/0shin.htm > > (Since then, Yahoo bought Geocities and my password no longer works. > I cannot update that page.) > > The cs that I made was effective against the Shingles. But it came > back. > > This is not unusual, especially when the immune system is > compromised. > > The cs that I made according to the specifications on my web page > no longer had any effect. > > I increased the dosage by increasing the brew time to 1 hr, then to > 1.5 hr. The Shingles remained. The scabs would not go away, and the > infection sites were very painful. > > In conjunction with another project, I tried three different methods > of stirring. My motivation was to reduce the need for constantly > cleaning the electrodes and the the glass that held the cs. > > To my surprise, the Shingles got worse. The scabs started bleeding, > which never happened before, and the cavities in my teeth hurt much > sooner. This cs lasted only several hours before another dose was > needed. > > A friend who moved in with me around the same time reported the same > result on her cavities. Stirring did not work for her either, so I > abandoned stirring. > > However, her family lives in Moldavia. She knew what cs could do, > and she wanted to send a cs generator to her brother. > > The 160VDC system described on my web page would not be suitable. I > started looking for a simple low voltage system, perhaps running off > a single 9V battery. > > If it could be made to work, there are many ways to get power. A 12V > car battery would work, a standard Wallwart power supply, or even > used 1.5V alkalines from a boombox. I posted my goals to the list, > then started working on the problem on a Thursday. > > The challenge was to figure out how to get enough Coulombs > transferred from a low voltage supply in a reasonable time. > > The solution was to increase the wetted area by folding the 12 ga > wire into a "W", then finding the series resistance needed to > approximate a constant current source. I can show the equations and > derivations needed in a separate post, but it is not important to > this topic. > > I made a great deal of black and gray sludge that weekend. By > Monday, I finally figured out what was happening with the mist and > the invisible ion cloud. My interpretation of the ion cloud density > is posted in other ULVDC threads. > > But the astonishing thing was the first trial of the new cs. > > I am sceptical of anything new, and did not gulp it down as I > normally do. The first test was only a mouthfull on that Monday. > > The following Wednesday, the Shingles scabs fell off. I have > reported this in other ULVDC posts. > > I cannot tell you how surprised I was. > > Now, the Shingles scabs are gone, the cavities are silent, and > nobody has cold sores anymore. > > According to references in a previous post, cold sores are easiest > to kill, Herpes genital viruses are next, and Shingles viruses are > the most difficult. The cs made at 87 uA/sq. in killed the Shingles. > > If these things were not true, and stirring worked, I would be > promoting stirring and analyzing which method worked the best. > > But none of these methods worked against the viruses we faced. I do > not know why, and you know I am capable of taking accurate enough > measurements of my process to tell if there was any change. > > I believe the difference between running at 1.4 mA/sq. in and 87 > uA/sq. in. is that fewer particles are generated and more ions are > available to kill viruses. > > I would be happy to supply the derivations and detailed calculations > if you like. > > And I hope this information is useful to document the effects of cs > on different viruses. > > I feel the current density used to make the cs is crucial, and > nobody else runs at densities this low. But once it is made, very > little is needed to have a significant effect. > > I believe this would help you in your goal. > > Best Regards, > > Mike Monett > > > -- > 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]> > >
