It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mysterioustranger
POLIO Vaccine. POLIO eradicatied in our lifetime.
Look these up and re-state your point.
PS There are many others. Lives saved over lives lost....regarding the ones that WORK.
Thanks
The healing properties of silver are so wide ranging that we see researchers expressing amazement time and time again. Alfred Searle, founder of the pharmaceutical conglomerate, wrote in 1919:
Applying colloidal silver to human subjects has been done in a large number of cases with astonishingly successful results. For internal administration. orally or hypodermically, it has the advantage of being rapidly fatal to parasites without toxic action on its host. It is quite stable. It protects rabbits from ten times the lethal dose tetanus or diphtheria toxin.
The body's ability to process the tiny atoms of colloidal silver makes silver build-up in the body impossible. The Environmental Protection Agency's Poison Control Center reports a "No Toxicity" listing for colloidal silver. In fact, it appears that harmlessness is one of the attributes of the colloidal state, regardless of content. For example, examining a bottle of colloidal minerals from a local health food store, I noticed arsenic, nickel and lead among the 65 trace minerals on the ingredients list: If the particles are small enough, you can even drink arsenic!
Since the body has a vital need for silver-to maintain the immune system and to produce new, healthy cells-and since our blood is also a colloid, the harmonious way in which colloids enter the body may well make colloidal silver the safest medicine on earth.
Just to prove a point to myself, I made a 16-ounce solution of well over 250 ppm and drank it. I repeated this procedure four days in a row, daily ingesting at least the equivalent of 50 16-ounce glasses of a 5-ppm, solution! I did not eat yogurt or acidophilus or compensate for friendly bacteria loss in any way. The only side effect was that I seemed to feel better!
According to pharmacist Ron Barnes, R.Ph. (Capitol Drugs, Los Angeles), this makes sense because:
Many strains of pathogenic microbes-viruses, fungi, bacteria or any other single-celled pathogen-resistant to other antibiotics are killed on contact by colloidal silver and are unable to mutate. However, it does not harm tissue-cell enzymes or friendly bacteria.
As an antibiotic, Silver kills over 650 disease causing organisms; resistant strains fail to develop. Silver is absolutely nontoxic. Silver is the best all-around germ fighter we have. Doctors are reporting that, taken internally, it works against syphilis, cholera, and malaria, diabetes and severe burns. -- Bio/Tech News, 1995
Dr. Bjorn Nordstrom, of the Karolinska Institute (Sweden's equivalent of our National Institutes of Health), has used Silver in his cancer cure method for many years. He says the whole thing is quite simple. This brought rapid remission in patients given up by other doctors. -- "Silver, Our Mightiest Germ Fighter" Science Digest, March, 1978.
The comeback of silver in medicine began in the 1970's. The late Dr. Carl Moyer,chairman of Washington University's Department of Surgery, received a grant to develop better treatments for burn victims. Dr. Margraf, as the chief biochemist, worked with Dr. Moyer and other surgeons to find an antiseptic strong enough, yet safe to use over large areas of the body. Dr. Margraf reviewed 22 antiseptic compounds and found drawbacks in all of them. "Mercury, for example, is an excellent antiseptic but toxic," he comments. "Popular antiseptics....can be used over small areas only." Furthermore, disease organisms can become resistant to antibiotics, triggering a dangerous super-infection. "These compounds are also ineffective against a number of harmful bacteria, including the biggest killer in burn cases - a greenish-blue bacterium called Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It almost always shows up in burns, releasing a poison." Reviewing medical literature, Dr. Margraf found repeated references to silver. It was described as a catalyst that disables the enzymes microorganisms depend on to "breathe." Consequently, they die.
Therefore, Dr. Margraf decided to use the best known compound of silver: silver nitrate, concentrated silver nitrate was corrosive and painful. So he diluted the silver nitrate to a .5 percent solution and found that it killed the Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria and permitted wounds to heal. Resistant strains did not appear. Silver nitrate, however, was far from ideal. It disturbed the balance of body salts, was thick and cumbersome to use and stained everything it touched. Dr. Margraf searched for other preparations of silver. As a result of these efforts, hundreds of important new medical uses for silver were found. Medical journal reports from the early 1900's demonstrated a properly prepared colloid of silver was the only form of silver solution that was not deposited under the skin, no matter how many times the proper amount was administered.
There were still skeptics. Some of the negative reaction that colloidal silver received in the early 1900's, "was due to a premature supply of improperly prepared and unstable colloids... Shortly after the definite recognition of the colloidal nature of the chief body fluids was effected, the enormous possibilities which might result from the application of colloidal disinfectants and medicines were rapidly recognized.".A number of colloidal substances were placed on the market in this country and elsewhere. It was soon found, however, that most of these preparations rapidly deteriorated in value: some of them were so unstable that they contained no active colloid at the time when they were used." N. R. Thompson recognized that, "To primitive life forms, oligodynamic silver is as toxic as the most powerful chemical disinfectants and this, coupled with its relative harmlessness to animate life (i.e. mammals), gives it great potential as a disinfectant."
Based on laboratory tests with colloidal silver, destructive bacteria, virus, and fungus organisms are killed within minutes of contact, Larry C. Ford, M.D, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UCLA School of Medicine, Center For The Health Sciences reported in a letter dated November 1, 1988, "I tested them (the silver solutions) using standard antimicrobial tests for disinfectants. The silver solutions were antibacterial for concentrations of 10' organisms per ml. of Streptococcus Pyogenes, Staphylococcus Aurcus, Neisseria Gonorrhea, Gardnerella Vaginalis, Salmonella Typhi, and other enteric pathogens, and fungicidal for Candida Albicans, Candida Globata, and M. Furfur."
Jim Powell reported in a Science Digest article March, 1978, titled, "Our Mightiest Germ Fighter", "Thanks to eye-opening research, silver is emerging as a wonder of modern medicine. An antibiotic kills perhaps a half-dozen different disease organisms, but silver kills some 650. Resistant strains fail to develop, Moreover, silver is virtually non-toxic." Dr. Harry Margraf of St. Louis concluded "Silver is the best all around germ-fighter we have."
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by pteridine
Are you suggesting the high incidence of the disease was somehow unrelated to the lowered mortality rate? If so, people must have found better methods of successfully treating the disease.
I do know that at that time in our history doctors weren't quite so free with the prescription pad and often recommended natural remedies to help their patients regain their health.
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by pteridine
Are you suggesting the high incidence of the disease was somehow unrelated to the lowered mortality rate? If so, people must have found better methods of successfully treating the disease.
I do know that at that time in our history doctors weren't quite so free with the prescription pad and often recommended natural remedies to help their patients regain their health.
What I am saying is that mortality rates are not indicative of the frequency of disease; the error you made in interpretation of the graph you showed.
As to the prescription pad; there weren't that many drugs available to prescribe and 'natural' remedies were it. Pharmacists distilled, concocted, decocted, extracted, encapsulated, and generally ran their business from plant materials. The first synthetic drug, Aspirin, made by Bayer and improved by acetylation of salicylic acid, replaced natural extracts in 1899 and was marketed as a miracle drug...which it is. Its mechanism of action wasn't discovered until 1971.
To imply that all things 'natural' are good and all things 'man made' are bad is unfounded.
Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by bonnieprince
It's really pointless isn't it? Everyone had their mind made up before this thread even started, so it really doesn't matter what anyone say in the end.
Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:
... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
Originally posted by daddio
I can only assume, and I hate doing that ever, that you are of the opinion that those who oppose vaccinations and have the documented proof to back up their opinion...are WRONG?
Is this correct? And if so, would that not be the worst case of ignorance ever?
.
Originally posted by frazzle
There could have been .... many things. I posted it so people could make their own interpretation. Maybe you know of a graph that shows what you're wanting to say, I don't. But if you want a definitive study of any disease incidence/mortality, you'd need to break it down decade by decade, country by country, location by location, socioeconomic status, rural or urban, age, vaccinated or not and a ton of other qualifiers. In the early 1900s kids got sick, they were treated at home (primarily) and they survived or they didn't. Records and statistics weren't an issue.
Before aspirin there was willow bark, which is still the main constituant of aspirin. The only problem with willow bark is you can't patent it.
Originally posted by antonia
Originally posted by daddio
I can only assume, and I hate doing that ever, that you are of the opinion that those who oppose vaccinations and have the documented proof to back up their opinion...are WRONG?
Is this correct? And if so, would that not be the worst case of ignorance ever?
.
Nope, what i said is pretty clear. You had your mind made up before this was even started. It doesn't matter what the other side says and you know it. You wouldn't listen to a word of it.edit on 13-5-2012 by antonia because: opps
Originally posted by research100
silver doesn't collect in the body?? Then why is this guy blue??
www.dailymail.co.uk...
Originally posted by research100
reply to post by daddio
so why in gods name was he taking 50,000 times the amount that was needed?? was it posted somewhere on the internet and he just accepted it as truth???? that's my point.
why is it that people scream about big pharma is only in it for the money, but individuals like the guy who this thread was started about, he doesn't believe in germ theory,(you know germs cause disease, bacteria cause infections which we all know is true)
Originally posted by research100
germs don't cause disease?? what are germs: viruses bacteria and fungi and protozoa. colds come from viruses, bacteria cause infections, fungal infections, hello.......... germs don't cause disease, and this is why shysters are making millionsedit on 13-5-2012 by research100 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by frazzle
There could have been .... many things. I posted it so people could make their own interpretation. Maybe you know of a graph that shows what you're wanting to say, I don't. But if you want a definitive study of any disease incidence/mortality, you'd need to break it down decade by decade, country by country, location by location, socioeconomic status, rural or urban, age, vaccinated or not and a ton of other qualifiers. In the early 1900s kids got sick, they were treated at home (primarily) and they survived or they didn't. Records and statistics weren't an issue.
Before aspirin there was willow bark, which is still the main constituant of aspirin. The only problem with willow bark is you can't patent it.
This means that your statement about a "natural' decrease in the incidence of disease has no basis. You don't know if the disease was decreasing or not, just that fewer people per capita were dying from it..
Willow bark is not the main consitiuent of aspirin. Aspirin is entirely synthetic and is acetyl salicylic acid. Willow bark [genus Salix] contains salicylic acid but the free acid causes internal bleeding. Acetylating it reduces the side effect and improves the drug.edit on 5/13/2012 by pteridine because: (no reason given)