On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 00:43, Nenah Sylver wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garnet" <[email protected]>
To: "Silver List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:11 AM
Subject: CS>
Toxic as defined in Stedman's Medical Dictionary means poisonous.
Poisonous is defined as injurious or dangerous to health.
I know what poisonous means, Garnet. Ozone is not poisonous.
That is a totally irresponsible statement in light of the many studies
documenting injurious effects of pure ozone.
I have medical grade ozone equipment obtained from Plasmafire in
Canada and
use
it for many purposes. When ozone is inhaled through olive oil (or
tea tree
and
other essential oils), an entirely new compound is created.
Do you know what that compound is? If not how do you know if it is
toxic? Not all toxic effects are immediately apparent. Olive Oil is
often not pure and may contain hexane or lye. How do you know that
the
olive oil you are using is actually pure -- do you have it assayed,
do
you know batch numbers in case there is a recall? Tee Tree oil if it
is
an inferior grade can contain toxic compounds -- again do you use
assayed numbered batches?
This is a spurious argument. If I spent my time getting substances
assayed, I
wouldn't be living. I am satisfied that the substances I'm using with
ozone are
pure.
That is an often used and very convenient evasion Nenah, but simply
what
I expect of those in your position to make money by putting a
disinformation spin on their products.
Ozone may scavenge toxins but it also produces toxins. What are the
amounts that you consider proper Nenah. Do you even know the ppm of
the
treatments you administer? Or what blood levels they produce? If not
then you are treading on very risky ground.
There are settings on my units. I don't have the ppm conversion chart
handy at
the moment.
See above.
The myth that ozone is toxic is based on studies done over 50 years
ago
Absolutely not true Nenah, there are many studies since the 50's that
demonstrate toxic effects of pure ozone. See this is what I mean by
practitioners who take someone else's word for the safety of a
practice
without actually doing their own checking -- you have simply
demonstrated my point very well.
And so I have medical references for the opposite. What does that
prove? It
proves that you follow your sources and I follow mine. I use ozone
and get
positive results and you do not use it because you follow your
sources.
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.
It was the ozone itself. Here is another reference that you can find
in
most medical libraries and many public libraries. What are the
citations
in your new book Nenah. I would certainly like to see their data! Can
you provide those references please?
I will provide ONE reference here. There are more in my book.
www.thefinchleyclinic.co.uk/nojavascript/therapies/ozone/safe.htm
This article is not referenced and provides no data. It is worthless.
It states:"Interestingly the opponents Ozone therapy are in my
experience always people or organisations who either have not actually
investigated the merits of the therapy, or who have a vested interest
in
suppressing the therapy. As Anthony D'Angelo put it: -"The people who
oppose your ideas are inevitably those who represent the established
order that your ideas will upset."
Totally wrong in my case. I have investigated the therapy for over 7
years. I have no vested interest. And I am certainly not what anyone
would label as establishment by any stretch of the imagination.
Lung damage has been documented both acute and chronic. Again I have
not
said Ozone is not beneficial, just that it is risky and that the
practioners must be well trained and able to verify what they are
actually adminstering.
The copyright date 2001 indicates it is quite up to date. The
information is meticulously reviewed by a world renowed board of
editors
and specialists in their respective fields. This is the 10th edition
of
this standard reference work published over the past 64 years.
Many "experts" who are considered "standard" reading in their field
say that
colloidal silver is bad for you but that doesn't make them right.
The editors of Goodman and Gillmans are not self-appointed experts
Nenah. They are world renowned and at the top of their respective
fields. Has nothing to do with the disinformation spread by a few about
CS.
Ozone must be used properly and in the right concentrations. Of
course it
will
irritate your lungs if it's at too high a concentration -- but that
doesn't
mean
ozone is toxic.
Yes actually it does mean that ozone is toxic because the definition
of
toxic is injurious to health.
Spurious. My point above about hydrochloric acid still stands. You
can take
water. People need water to live but too much will kill you. It also
matters
whether you drink it or put your face under it.
Your argument is circular Nenah. A clear indication of one that is not
able to use critical analysis and logic to support a position.
Ozone has proven tremendously healing for me and for many, many
others with
whom
I have personal contact. I urge the more open minded of you to see
for
yourself
what this amazing therapy can do. For more information, you can
join the
Oxyplus
list at Yahoo.
My posts on this list speak for my open minded nature. But open
minded
does not mean unquestioning or unable to discern truth or validity. I
never said that ozone was without therapeutic benefit.
Resorting to spin and disinformation to sell or defend a practice is
however an indication of being closed minded -- close to the truth.
An
inability to discern safety in therapeutics is a very dangerous
quality
for anyone particularly a health care practitioner, author or
consultant.
But as usual when I refute the erroneous information you post Nenah
you
will disappear from the list for a period of time until you presume
the
list has forgotten your poorly researched and misleading information,
also known in the vernacular as "spin". But you see these are the
exact
types of posts that I do not forget and that give alternative
medicine
practioners a bad name.
You are making an assumption as to why I might not reply to your
posts after a
point. I simply choose not to put more energy than necessary into
what appears
to me to be a non-productive use of my time and energy. I'm simply
putting out
that ozone therapy is a wonderful adjunct to health, just like
colloidal silver
is; and if people want to explore that based on my post, that's their
choice. I
have no investment one way or the other.
I am aware of arguments pro and con for ozone, and have made my
choice based on
(1) people's successes, and (2) my own empirical evidence. My own
experience is
worth something to me.
Have you followed those people long term? What type of tests have you
done to determine there was no damage done? Empirical evidence is
helpful but it is not repeatable and verifiable, two requirements of
well founded scientific data.
I have not disparged personal experience -- in fact I think it is quite
valuable. As I have stated about Ozone, but the fact remains that is is
risky and does have toxic effects. Not recognizing the limitations of a
therapy is irresponsible and indicates someone who can not be trusted
to
have the best interest of their clients at heart. Profit and image are
the stock and trade of this type of practitioner. We find them in both
alternative and traditional medicine, indeed in many walks of life.
They are often the most charming people well practices in the art of
distraction and able to spin the most amazing tales that confound the
critical thinking abilities of even the best minds. But their webs are
gossamer and fall apart under scrutiny.
BTW Nenah WHERE is your PHd from? Did it come from an accredited
university? Lack of an answer here is an answer.
I might also point out that I do not sell anything, no products, no
books, my consultations on this list are offered freely to all. I
have
no axe to grind or sale to make. I am interested in full disclosure
and
public access to truth.
Garnet
I have no axe to grind either. Again, if you are interested in
learning more
about ozone and why a "spin" has been put on it, you might consider
joining
Oxyplus or writing to Saul Pressman at Oxyplus. He also has a free
book, The
Story of Ozone, which he's happy to send to anyone who asks.
I have learned all I need to know about ozone in the past 7 years I
have
been actively reseraching its potential for treating degenerative
disease. My criteria are that something has to be number one safe,
affordable and available. You see Nenah most of the truly ill people in
the world have very little money, time, energy or expertise. I have
been
on the Oxyplus List previously and did not find the information
credible, anecdotal information is not that useful for my purposes as
stated above.
Before Mike has a hissy fit I will direct further responses to the OT
list. See ya there unless you are simply too busy with more important
things than the safety of your clients and the interest of full
disclosure to participate in a real discussion.
Garnet
--
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]>
