what does better results mean? // was: Re: Hi all

[Guest guest]

Hello Forrist,

Thanks for this opportunity for clarity about what you mean

by " works better " . Comments below:

> Moria,

>

> Thank you for the clarity and specificity of your last msg. It is

true

> that the study you suggest has not been done. The key, I guess,

boils

> down to clarity. In this case, what each of us are defining

as " works

> better " . We obviously have different definitions and that's fine

though

> helpful when we know that.

While I agree that it is good that we are clear on the

meaning, I also think there are some common uses of

such terms as this.

Basically I think that EFFECTIVENSS is different from

side effects or cost. I think others would generally

agree with me on this, although for some it might take

some thinking throught it.

> For me, " works better " applies to these factors: NCD does not

promote

> but rather inhibits yeast, it does not create any free roaming

toxics or

> heavy metals but only pulls out that which it is removing from the

body

> and it does not remove any of the important positive minerals.

None of those things have to do with EFFECTIVENESS.

I realize that you are probably assuming that zeolite is

very effective at removing mercury, but you have not

stated it, and THAT is what EFFECTIVENESS is.

What you are discussing above is the side effects, or

other costs, involved. By the way, I don't necessarily

agree with you about all the things you listed, but I

don't think it is worth any debate at this point, since

my main point is that you aren't discussing effectiveness.

My point being that there is nothing to say that using

zeolite removes mercury as well as ALA chelation (every

3 hours).

I consider costs and side effects and risks (etc) very

important things to consider in deciding to use or not

use ANYTHING. Period. But that is NOT the same thing

as whether the thing " works " .

> In terms of what will produce " better " results under study

conditions

> you proposed we are likely to never know unless someone wants to

fund

> the narrow study you've suggested.

Of course. Regarding narrowness, just bear in mind that I am

FAR from a lone voice in the wilderness on the points I've

brought up (about timing and ALA as best chelation agent).

good wishes,

Moria

http://home.earthlink.net/~moriam/

Mercury Detox: Information, Tools, and Resources