tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973985529100174047.post5945502422374586930..comments2023-06-22T06:56:08.652-04:00Comments on The Nature In Us: Safer Antibiotic Still Workssharingsunshinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07275158327616370321noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973985529100174047.post-82006475649523468382008-08-16T15:51:00.000-04:002008-08-16T15:51:00.000-04:00Many colloidal silvers are not safe for continual ...Many colloidal silvers are not safe for continual use due to the reasons you mentioned and probably more.<BR/><BR/>However, if you study the research on Silver Shield and the patent info, you'll find that it doesn't have the inherent issues due to the Aqua Sol technology used to process it. <BR/><BR/>It cannot store in the body, it's eliminated through the kidneys. It also doesn't have the possible toxic heavy metals that some silver products have. Although, even the other silver products would be preferable in comparison to the down side of antibiotics and the "no solution" option for viruses.<BR/><BR/>More info:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.theherbsplace.com/Super_Hero_to_Combat_Germs_sp_90.html" REL="nofollow">Silver Shield</A><BR/><BR/>General P.K. Carlton, MD, the Director of Integrative Center for Homeland Security has stated in written form,<BR/><BR/>"I would like to bring to your attention a resource that I feel can be used and utilized in the area of bio-defense from bio-terrorism to infectious diseases such as SARS. The ABL antimicrobial has undergone rigorous testing and has been found to kill anthrax, bubonic plague, hospital staph and SARS. It's the first new antimicrobial for the hospital in many years. In addition the product is non-toxic to humans, this product is EPA approved for hospital staph and bubonic plague and currently awaiting section 18 approval for anthrax. In short, we currently do not have anything with such a wide spectrum of efficacy in our inventory. As such, I recommend that the antimicrobial be evaluated for addition to the national pushback stockpile."sharingsunshinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07275158327616370321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3973985529100174047.post-21715630847220315222008-08-16T15:22:00.000-04:002008-08-16T15:22:00.000-04:00Who says the Bible isn't a book of science? Every ...Who says the Bible isn't a book of science? Every scientist in the world. <BR/><BR/>By definition, science is based in skepticism, not in faith. Once you figure out an idea, you test it. If the test shows something that wasn't recognized before, you publish your results, and other scientists try the similar tests to see if your test is really showing that.<BR/><BR/>The Bible, on the other hand, is a historical document. It contains history, genealogy, law, philosophy, poetry, prophesy, and probably other things I can't remember. Some people consider it to be sacred; some do not. Some people consider it to be infallible; some point out obvious inconsistancies. Some people consider it core of their faith; some consider it a useful document to understand the history of their faith; some consider it obsolete. In any case, the Bible itself warns that it is not to be modified, with dire consequences. <BR/><BR/>Accepting something as it is, is faith. Science demands that you question everything, testing it, making it prove itself. I suspect we need both in our lives. <BR/><BR/>Silver compounds have been used in the treatment of malaria for about a century, and for SLE (lupus) more recently, but doctors are very hesitant to prescribe them because silver is NOT safe. It can cause argyria, resulting brain damage (including persistent vegetative state), seizures, and death.Dr. Harl Deloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17424071404764987713noreply@blogger.com