It proves that the research you base your statements on is not supported
by a consensus of the world's experts. Are your references published in
peer reviewed journals? That is the difference between bona fide studies
and simple publications. The sources one chooses to follow speaks to the
quality and level of excellence and integrity one embodies.
Garnet - if the consensus of the world's experts is to be the basis of what is "right" then all of us using colloidal silver,
the topic of this list, are in the "wrong". That one just doesn't fly. So so so many of "bona fide studies" and
"peer reviewed journals" present such skewed research based on preconceived judgements, the research designed and implemented in
such a way as to prove the preexisting premise. In my view, there is no such thing as "pure" science. The observer (with
preexisting beliefs and judgements) changes the dynamics of the experience no matter how "pure" the intent may be. Just my
take. Doesn't mean one shouldn't read the information that is out there, or check out the references, but that can't be the basis of one's
decision as to whether information is good or not. In fact, in my view, presonal experience and anecdotal information are the best source
of information.
Just my two cents, Joy
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
