CS

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/1/2001 8:53:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

jcald@... writes:

<< Does anyone know of a colloidal silver group through egroups?

>>

Hi Joan,

There is a list on and I will get back to you with that

information. Here is the link to the CS list that I belong to: Dotsie

- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal

silver.

To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to:

silver-list-request@... -or- silver-digest-request@... with

the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line.

To post, address your message to: silver-list@... Silver-list

archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List

maintainer: Mike Devour

[Guest guest]

Go to . Put in Irene de Villiers

in the search at the top right. Go to the messages for around October 30th

and look at the discussions on colloidal silver. Let me know if you need any

help.

CS

>

> Can someone please direct me to your concerns with colloidal silver - I

know it can be harmful if used constantly, in large doses over a long period

but I am also on another list for BARF diets [ raw meat & bones diet for

dogs] which is used by quite a few breeders, crufts people etc. who swear by

it and some use so much they have even bought the equipment and make their

own now - I have some, have only used it as an occasional thing medicenally

but it is a very good natural anti-bacterial.

> >From what I looked up before getting it, there have been very few

documented problems with it and they were situations where it really was

being over-used and maybe wasn't a pure enough quality due to poor standards

of production.

> thanks

> )

>

> http://www.freewebs.com/inspire/

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

thankyou - I have looked at some of that and will carry on later

once I have sorted out WW3 [G].

thanks

)

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,

I have to apologize for my nomenclature. By, " clumps, " I mean clumps of silver

over 4-6 atoms. Such a " clump " doesn't penetrate well. I started making CS with

my home-made Beck Zapper. The batches measured out at 7-9 ppm before they turned

too yellow. I got OK results with this product.

I switched to 240V AC, " stirred " with a fish bubbler, and found that I could get

over 160 ppm with no yellowing. I concluded that the yellowing must be a certain

amount of oxidizing, but I don't know for sure. If it is the case, then the

yellow part probably does no good.

The problem was that it didn't work well over a certain amount of PPM. I would

add water to bring the level back to 10-12 ppm, but the results were about what

low voltage DC has. If the ppm is kept to 10-12 ppm in making the CS, then even

220V AC gives spectacular results. (I think that it isn't very safe to make that

way. A person wouldn't want to finger-test for current.) As long as I kept the

ppm down, I got wonderful results.

Dick

>

> I've b een using commercial 500ppm CS, a yellow liquid, for the last

> 10-12 years. It is s table, doesn't clump, and is supremely effective. I

> wonder how it is made. bob

>

>

> Re: The High Blood Pressure - CS

>

>

> > Bruce is making it at about 12 ppm. He says that anything less than 10 ppm

> > won't effect problems like cancer. If you try to make it over 15 ppm it

> > clumps up into too big a cluster and won't penetrate cells. Commercial

> > stuff made at 50 ppm and diluted isn't good.

> >

> > AC seems better. It makes particles that aren't charged and repelled. It

> > makes smaller clumps too.

[Guest guest]

Hello Dick & Bob,

I have some questions for the Both of you. I ask because I'm doing

research on Product development and Writing a Book. One Goal I have is

to provide a Non_Profit website for Providing People a Low cost place

to acquire Electro-Medical Devices and the Info to help cause

"Spontaneous Remission" for those that truly care to help themselves.

I also have (Off Topic) on my Bench & Desk Proto-Types of "Hydroxy

Generator" (A device that makes Hydrogen & Oxygen from h2o on

demand). This is for Alternative energy Production. Small example: A

Hydroxy generator provides fuel to run a Gas powered 7-15 Kilowatt

Generator to power your home and possible provide power back to the

Grid. Hundreds done already world wide.

I have 2 large enemys so far, Big Pharm & Big Oil. So I have 1,000s

of pages of research and apparently need more so I ask for your help.

Dick,

What type of water do you use?

You say "Over a certain PPM it did not work very well" Please elaborate

on this? Meaning you got sick or had contracted something?

How do you define Wonderful results?

Please provide as much incite as you can.

Thanks!

Bob,

500ppm CS! I'm new to this so I need more info. Too much Silver

accumulation under the skin causes Argyria. Old English referred to

this as "Blue Bloods".

How much do you take?

10-12 years of taking this Dose Qualifies you as an expert to me. So

have you had any illnesses since the start?

Have you had a Complex Blood test?

How it's made maybe simple.

I do plan on testing many ways to make it. I'm sure 100's before me

have done this but not "Open Sourced" their results.

Thanks,

Ron

M~R

luthierret wrote:

Hi Bob,

I have to apologize for my nomenclature. By, "clumps," I mean clumps of

silver over 4-6 atoms. Such a "clump" doesn't penetrate well. I started

making CS with my home-made Beck Zapper. The batches measured out at

7-9 ppm before they turned too yellow. I got OK results with this

product.

I switched to 240V AC, "stirred" with a fish bubbler, and found that I

could get over 160 ppm with no yellowing. I concluded that the

yellowing must be a certain amount of oxidizing, but I don't know for

sure. If it is the case, then the yellow part probably does no good.

The problem was that it didn't work well over a certain amount of PPM.

I would add water to bring the level back to 10-12 ppm, but the results

were about what low voltage DC has. If the ppm is kept to 10-12 ppm in

making the CS, then even 220V AC gives spectacular results. (I think

that it isn't very safe to make that way. A person wouldn't want to

finger-test for current.) As long as I kept the ppm down, I got

wonderful results.

Dick

>

> I've b een using commercial 500ppm CS, a yellow liquid, for the

last

> 10-12 years. It is s table, doesn't clump, and is supremely

effective. I

> wonder how it is made. bob

>

>

> Re: The High Blood

Pressure - CS

>

>

> > Bruce is making it at about 12 ppm. He says that anything

less than 10 ppm

> > won't effect problems like cancer. If you try to make it over

15 ppm it

> > clumps up into too big a cluster and won't penetrate cells.

Commercial

> > stuff made at 50 ppm and diluted isn't good.

> >

> > AC seems better. It makes particles that aren't charged and

repelled. It

> > makes smaller clumps too.

No virus found in this outgoing messageChecked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.1.0.25 - 6.14230).http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/

[Guest guest]

Answered in sequence below;

>

> Hello Dick & Bob,

> I have some questions for the Both of you.

>

> Dick,

> What type of water do you use?

distilled water. It tested at less that 1 ppm for anything suspended

> You say " Over a certain PPM it did not work very well " Please elaborate

Well, it isn't that it didn't work. It did! If I had an infected sore, or cold,

it would work. When I switched to 240V AC, the product worked noticeably faster,

and more reliably. When I tried diluting batches that " got away " from me and

went up into 40, 50, 120, etc. ppm, they didn't work even as well as the product

from 27V DC. But they did work.

The product from 2200V AC works faster and even more reliably.

> on this? Meaning you got sick or had contracted something?

Right! Colds, sores, burns, etc.

> How do you define Wonderful results?

No product is 100% I haven't kept track of how well it works by %. A guess is

that 240V AC is 50% better than 27V DC and 2200V AC is another 30% better than

the 240V AC product. I hope that this helps.

I'm also interested in the H2 and O2 generator. I've read that they call it,

" Browns gas. " Normal electrolysis has a proportion of 4/1. It needs an input of

energy 4 times as great as the energy that one gets out of it. There was a

Keely-net report that showed how to make a device that would run a car on water.

I don't know anybody that tried it though. There was a guy named Stan Meyer that

supposedly ran a dune buggy on water.

Dick

[Guest guest]

>

> From my readings I find its interesting that in vitro experiments (i.e. in

> labs) CS has been shown to be 100% effective against all bacteria's it was

> used against. Also they appear not to be able to evolve a response to it. It

> really is amazing stuff.

yes, but keep in mind that in vitro, some ABX types are also very effective

while they don't work at all in vivo (e.g. erythromycin action against

Borrelia).

Also, if CS kills all bacteria I guarantee you that there will be nasty side

effects. A lot of our organs (e.g. gut, skin) depend on countless types of

bacteria. Kill them all and you kill yourself. In that respect herbs (like the

Buhner herbs) are a better approach IMHO.

I never said that CS is a 'hoax' as someone else here suggests. I agree that CS

has proven antibacterial properties; if used correctly it can help to fight

bacterial infections. But I haven't seen any proof that it will work against

Borrelia in tissues (i.e. in late stage disease).

I'm not comfortable with the fact that, despite lots of research, nobody really

knows how CS works. Why would it be specific against (bad?) bacteria, and not

hurt other free living cells like our blood cells? Most simple compounds, heavy

metals, Chlorine dioxide etc. have similar action against almost everything that

lives.

> Viruses of course can be a different story. Supposedly CS will attack cells

> that have been taken over by viruses, but I have yet to see any research

> backing that up.

very very unlikely. All cells have viruses, and cells in our body have

tremendous variation. How is a simple CS molecule going to decide what is good

and what is evil?

[Guest guest]

But don't the Buhner herbs discriminate between bad and good bacteria? Or is

that incorrect.

If so, how does that work?

Personally I'm comfortable trying something that hasn't been proven or how it

works is unknown, if I'm inspired to do so. I haven't tried CS yet, but I may in

the future.

Connie

[ ] CS

I'm not comfortable with the fact that, despite lots of research, nobody really

knows how CS works. Why would it be specific against (bad?) bacteria, and not

hurt other free living cells like our blood cells? Most simple compounds, heavy

metals, Chlorine dioxide etc. have similar action against almost everything that

lives.

[Guest guest]

I was the one who wrote the post saying:

" Colloidal silver is touted as a hoax as well and yet it is being used more and

more by LLMDs as an adjunct. "

As you can see, nothing here suggests that you made this claim. I was saying

that one can google CS and find many sites claiming miracles and others saying

it is pure hoax.

I realize that you may be on the defensive but please don't read more into these

posts than what is there, at least the ones I write.

deb

>

>

> I never said that CS is a 'hoax' as someone else here suggests.

[Guest guest]

Excuse me.....

[ ] Re: CS

I was the one who wrote the post saying:

" Colloidal silver is touted as a hoax as well and yet it is being used more and

more by LLMDs as an adjunct. "

As you can see, nothing here suggests that you made this claim. I was saying

that one can google CS and find many sites claiming miracles and others saying

it is pure hoax.

I realize that you may be on the defensive but please don't read more into these

posts than what is there, at least the ones I write.

deb

>

>

> I never said that CS is a 'hoax' as someone else here suggests.

[Guest guest]

I do agree with a lot of this. Its one reason my wife, as well as numerous

others, use the rife/cs protocol and not just CS alone. Lyme has the innate

ability to hide from blood borne antibiotics as we well know.

Also it is believed that ionic CS, is pretty much neutralized before it

reaches the lower GI track. But as a precaution my wife will consume

probitics hours after the CS dosage.

Again nothing had been tested in the lab so its unclear why its working for

them. The theory is the rife causes the bacteria to some how come out of

hiding and be open to attack from the CS. But it could be something else

entirely different too.

The real shame is that due to profit motives there isn't much call for the

expensive research to be done that would help explain things about CS. So

many expensive antibiotics might suddenly become unsellable. The same goes

for herbal protocols too. Little lab research is really being done on them.

I enjoy a good polite discussion. There is so much I just don't know. I am

always willing to learn new things and change my own views on what is so and

what is not.

www.lyme-resource.com

You can lead a person to a fact, but you can't make them think! -

> [ ] CS

>

>

>

>

> >

> > From my readings I find its interesting that in vitro experiments

> > (i.e. in

> > labs) CS has been shown to be 100% effective against all

> bacteria's it

> > was used against. Also they appear not to be able to evolve

> a response

> > to it. It really is amazing stuff.

>

> yes, but keep in mind that in vitro, some ABX types are also

> very effective while they don't work at all in vivo (e.g.

> erythromycin action against Borrelia).

>

> Also, if CS kills all bacteria I guarantee you that there

> will be nasty side effects. A lot of our organs (e.g. gut,

> skin) depend on countless types of bacteria. Kill them all

> and you kill yourself. In that respect herbs (like the Buhner

> herbs) are a better approach IMHO.

>

> I never said that CS is a 'hoax' as someone else here

> suggests. I agree that CS has proven antibacterial

> properties; if used correctly it can help to fight bacterial

> infections. But I haven't seen any proof that it will work

> against Borrelia in tissues (i.e. in late stage disease).

>

> I'm not comfortable with the fact that, despite lots of

> research, nobody really knows how CS works. Why would it be

> specific against (bad?) bacteria, and not hurt other free

> living cells like our blood cells? Most simple compounds,

> heavy metals, Chlorine dioxide etc. have similar action

> against almost everything that lives.

>

>

> > Viruses of course can be a different story. Supposedly CS

> will attack

> > cells that have been taken over by viruses, but I have yet

> to see any

> > research backing that up.

>

> very very unlikely. All cells have viruses, and cells in our

> body have tremendous variation. How is a simple CS molecule

> going to decide what is good and what is evil?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What is CS please?

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

[ ] CS

>

>

>

>

> >

> > From my readings I find its interesting that in vitro experiments

> > (i.e. in

> > labs) CS has been shown to be 100% effective against all

> bacteria's it

> > was used against. Also they appear not to be able to evolve

> a response

> > to it. It really is amazing stuff.

>

> yes, but keep in mind that in vitro, some ABX types are also

> very effective while they don't work at all in vivo (e.g.

> erythromycin action against Borrelia).

>

> Also, if CS kills all bacteria I guarantee you that there

> will be nasty side effects. A lot of our organs (e.g. gut,

> skin) depend on countless types of bacteria. Kill them all

> and you kill yourself. In that respect herbs (like the Buhner

> herbs) are a better approach IMHO.

>

> I never said that CS is a 'hoax' as someone else here

> suggests. I agree that CS has proven antibacterial

> properties; if used correctly it can help to fight bacterial

> infections. But I haven't seen any proof that it will work

> against Borrelia in tissues (i.e. in late stage disease).

>

> I'm not comfortable with the fact that, despite lots of

> research, nobody really knows how CS works. Why would it be

> specific against (bad?) bacteria, and not hurt other free

> living cells like our blood cells? Most simple compounds,

> heavy metals, Chlorine dioxide etc. have similar action

> against almost everything that lives.

>

>

> > Viruses of course can be a different story. Supposedly CS

> will attack

> > cells that have been taken over by viruses, but I have yet

> to see any

> > research backing that up.

>

> very very unlikely. All cells have viruses, and cells in our

> body have tremendous variation. How is a simple CS molecule

> going to decide what is good and what is evil?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It stands for Colloidal Silver. There is a great faq page at

http://www.silver-colloids.com/

www.lyme-resource.com

You can lead a person to a fact, but you can't make them think! -

> [ ] CS

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > From my readings I find its interesting that in vitro experiments

> > > (i.e. in

> > > labs) CS has been shown to be 100% effective against all

> > bacteria's it

> > > was used against. Also they appear not to be able to evolve

> > a response

> > > to it. It really is amazing stuff.

> >

> > yes, but keep in mind that in vitro, some ABX types are also very

> > effective while they don't work at all in vivo (e.g.

> > erythromycin action against Borrelia).

> >

> > Also, if CS kills all bacteria I guarantee you that there will be

> > nasty side effects. A lot of our organs (e.g. gut,

> > skin) depend on countless types of bacteria. Kill them all and you

> > kill yourself. In that respect herbs (like the Buhner

> > herbs) are a better approach IMHO.

> >

> > I never said that CS is a 'hoax' as someone else here suggests. I

> > agree that CS has proven antibacterial properties; if used

> correctly

> > it can help to fight bacterial infections. But I haven't seen any

> > proof that it will work against Borrelia in tissues (i.e. in late

> > stage disease).

> >

> > I'm not comfortable with the fact that, despite lots of research,

> > nobody really knows how CS works. Why would it be specific against

> > (bad?) bacteria, and not hurt other free living cells like

> our blood

> > cells? Most simple compounds, heavy metals, Chlorine

> dioxide etc. have

> > similar action against almost everything that lives.

> >

> >

> > > Viruses of course can be a different story. Supposedly CS

> > will attack

> > > cells that have been taken over by viruses, but I have yet

> > to see any

> > > research backing that up.

> >

> > very very unlikely. All cells have viruses, and cells in

> our body have

> > tremendous variation. How is a simple CS molecule going to

> decide what

> > is good and what is evil?

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Again nothing had been tested in the lab so its unclear why its working for

> them. The theory is the rife causes the bacteria to some how come out of

> hiding and be open to attack from the CS. But it could be something else

> entirely different too.

I accept that rife causes 'herx' reactions for some people, so something is

going on. But we don't even know what a 'herx' really is, medically. I'm pretty

sure the average Lyme herx is NOT like the official definition of a herx, with

fevers etc. caused by high toxin load in the blood, as a result of sudden

bacterial die-off.

One of the problems with rife is that it is ill-defined, which makes testing

almost impossible. If you test with a specific device (say a Doug Coil) and

specific frequencies and find no effect, believers will claim you used the wrong

device or the wrong frequencies, cycles, waveform, etc.. And where these

frequencies, durations, cycles etc. come from is really ... magic.

You cannot test a 'theory' if it doesn't have solid fundamentals that allow

predictions that can be verified or falsified.

> The real shame is that due to profit motives there isn't much call for the

> expensive research to be done that would help explain things about CS. So

> many expensive antibiotics might suddenly become unsellable. The same goes

> for herbal protocols too. Little lab research is really being done on them.

I don't think it is just that. There is a lot of scientific research lately into

medical effects of 'nano silver'. Maybe there is more money there nowadays than

in antibiotics. most ABX are cheap, patents are no longer valid so everyone can

make them. There are a few expensive products but most Pharma companies don't

make money from ABX.

I think herbal protocols in general have the same problem as rife that they can

be ill-defined. There can be many components, and the content can vary strongly

depending on where the herbs come from, when they were harvested etc. This is

also a valid issue with the FDA trying to 'regulate' this market (although I

would prefer if they leave it alone, and just require some general disclaimer on

the bottle).

There is significant research into specific herbs. Buhners book clearly shows

this and a simple search on PubMed will find over a thousand hits for some

herbs, despite the fact that there is relatively little money to be made on

them. I think biochemical / medical research will increase with the latest

discoveries regarding herbs and quorum sensing.

[Guest guest]

knot,

have you ever used rife?

> >

> >

> > Again nothing had been tested in the lab so its unclear why its working for

> > them. The theory is the rife causes the bacteria to some how come out of

> > hiding and be open to attack from the CS. But it could be something else

> > entirely different too.

>

> I accept that rife causes 'herx' reactions for some people, so something is

going on. But we don't even know what a 'herx' really is, medically. I'm pretty

sure the average Lyme herx is NOT like the official definition of a herx, with

fevers etc. caused by high toxin load in the blood, as a result of sudden

bacterial die-off.

>

> One of the problems with rife is that it is ill-defined, which makes testing

almost impossible. If you test with a specific device (say a Doug Coil) and

specific frequencies and find no effect, believers will claim you used the wrong

device or the wrong frequencies, cycles, waveform, etc.. And where these

frequencies, durations, cycles etc. come from is really ... magic.

>

> You cannot test a 'theory' if it doesn't have solid fundamentals that allow

predictions that can be verified or falsified.

>

>

> > The real shame is that due to profit motives there isn't much call for the

> > expensive research to be done that would help explain things about CS. So

> > many expensive antibiotics might suddenly become unsellable. The same goes

> > for herbal protocols too. Little lab research is really being done on them.

>

> I don't think it is just that. There is a lot of scientific research lately

into medical effects of 'nano silver'. Maybe there is more money there nowadays

than in antibiotics. most ABX are cheap, patents are no longer valid so everyone

can make them. There are a few expensive products but most Pharma companies

don't make money from ABX.

>

> I think herbal protocols in general have the same problem as rife that they

can be ill-defined. There can be many components, and the content can vary

strongly depending on where the herbs come from, when they were harvested etc.

This is also a valid issue with the FDA trying to 'regulate' this market

(although I would prefer if they leave it alone, and just require some general

disclaimer on the bottle).

>

> There is significant research into specific herbs. Buhners book clearly shows

this and a simple search on PubMed will find over a thousand hits for some

herbs, despite the fact that there is relatively little money to be made on

them. I think biochemical / medical research will increase with the latest

discoveries regarding herbs and quorum sensing.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> knot,

>

> have you ever used rife?

no, but I know a few people who did. That sealed the case for me

You can't try all possible lyme treatments, so it is not on my list.

P.S.: for the Rife believers, I came across an article that COULD have something

to do with why/how Rife is working (if it is at all). It's a complicated and

scientifically controversial subject, so just a snippet for those with some

background:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/

A novel property of DNA is described: the capacity of some bacterial DNA

sequences to induce electromagnetic waves at high aqueous dilutions. It appears

to be a resonance phenomenon triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background

of very low frequency waves. The genomic DNA of most pathogenic bacteria

contains sequences which are able to generate such signals. This opens the way

to the development of highly sensitive detection system for chronic bacterial

infections in human and animal diseases.

The same researcher, Montaigner (Nobel Prize medicine 2008; people who follow

Lyme research may know him from the discussions about AIDS/syphilis), recently

also made claims about detecting something akin to 'DNA quantum teleportation'.

Its all very controversial, but Montaigner is a scientist to be reckoned with.

If he is right, most of the (bio)chemistry of the last hundred years or so would

have to be reevaluated.

[Guest guest]

Fascinating! I am going to share this with others!

www.lyme-resource.com

You can lead a person to a fact, but you can't make them think! -

> [ ] Re: CS

>

>

>

>

> >

> > knot,

> >

> > have you ever used rife?

>

> no, but I know a few people who did. That sealed the case for

> me You can't try all possible lyme treatments, so it is

> not on my list.

>

> P.S.: for the Rife believers, I came across an article that

> COULD have something to do with why/how Rife is working (if

> it is at all). It's a complicated and scientifically

> controversial subject, so just a snippet for those with some

> background:

>

> http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/

>

> A novel property of DNA is described: the capacity of some

> bacterial DNA sequences to induce electromagnetic waves at

> high aqueous dilutions. It appears to be a resonance

> phenomenon triggered by the ambient electromagnetic

> background of very low frequency waves. The genomic DNA of

> most pathogenic bacteria contains sequences which are able to

> generate such signals. This opens the way to the development

> of highly sensitive detection system for chronic bacterial

> infections in human and animal diseases.

>

> The same researcher, Montaigner (Nobel Prize medicine 2008;

> people who follow Lyme research may know him from the

> discussions about AIDS/syphilis), recently also made claims

> about detecting something akin to 'DNA quantum teleportation'.

>

> Its all very controversial, but Montaigner is a scientist to

> be reckoned with. If he is right, most of the (bio)chemistry

> of the last hundred years or so would have to be reevaluated.

>