Re: FBI Raids Liberty Dollar - Confiscates All Ron Paul Dollar


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:Bjjcj.34785$Pv2.33524@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:d782b$47714d18$4b5904fd$19815@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:Fb5cj.1030$6%.1014@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:f3b45$477097ad$62118be6$5517@xxxxxxxxxx:

<snip>

I'm snipping liberally. Apologies is I overdid it.

No problem that would be hard to do. :-)

If the Federal debt is ever paid, there will not be any
Federal Reserve Notes in circulation.

FRNs are not promissory notes. They are not evidence of
debt. The US does issue debt instruments. These are
called treasury notes and bills. But those can be paid
off (and we were on track to do that in 2000), and there
would still be FRNs.

So we have a monitary system designed to create more
debt, but never pay it off.

Don't you think you should at least learn to spell
monetary?

The interest on the debt is the lion share of the debt.
However if silver & gold coin or titanium and paladium
coins were in circulation there would not be any
interest owed to the Federal Reserve Bank.

The public debit is about $9 trillion; the money supply
is about $1 trillion.

You mean Congress' debt is about $9 trillion.

No, Congress votes for it; the President signs it into law.
They're our creatures, like it or not. It's the public debt.

the public debt in the
form of credit card and consumer debt is something over $20
trillion dollars.

This is private debt.

Do you know what usery is?

I know what usury is.

it's when you loan somebody money when
you know they can never pay off the loan.

No, it isn't. It's charging someone more interest on a loan than
allowed by law.

So if the law says you can charge 100% interest per year, you
believe that would not be usery?

Not legally. Check the name of the newsgroup you're posting to.

Yeah I know there is Right, wrong, and legal does not need to be right
or wrong. Legal can be whatever the local warlord says it is.

It took the Federal Reserve 20 years to bankrupt the Congress

The Congress cannot be bankrupt. Do you mean the country?

One of the Definitions of the United States is the Congress. I could
have said the United States but I choose to be much more specific.
If you have read any amount of monitary history of the United States.

If I'd read any amount of monetary history, I'd be able to spell it,
no?

You think so? I'm not so sure. You seem to be a better speller than
history
student.

You would know that the Roosevelt declared a State of National
Emergency and confiscated all the gold and making it's holding illegal
because the Congress required it to pay it's obligations.

Well, there *was* a national emergency. It's now called the Great
Depression, and whatever Roosevelt did he did via statutes upheld by the
Supreme Court.

The banking collapse was intentional. Gold was moved off shore to England
where it drew a higher rate of interest. Then the Bank of India working
with
the Bank England liquidated their silver coinage and sold it on the world
market.
This caused an unbearable strain on the silver market already under stress
due to
the short weight silver coinage in Europe, America, and Japan. The
dislocation
of prices between silver and gold on the equity markets caused the banking
collapse. It was then that agents of the Federal Reserve and the Bank of
England
authored the Emergency Banking Relief Act. Only one copy was available on
the
house and Senate floor, it was unread by those who had to vote for it.

I've read it, an interesting read if you've also read the "Trading with the
Enemies Act
of 1917" Interesting in the fact of what was included and excluded from the
Act of
'33.

At the time the Common law which was the law of the land was replaced
by Administrative law.

Cite? (Hint: most common law covers things that are the province of the
states, not the feds.)

Lots of civil libertys ceased during the depression and the "National
Emergency"
that were never restored.

There is enough debt in FRN's to buy every ounce of gold on the
planet 3 times over.

So what? FRNs are not debt instruments. They're legal tender.

What do you believe a debt instrument to be? A "Note" is a debt
instrument

A debt instrument has a set of legal requirements. I believe you posted
them earlier. FRNs don't qualify, no matter the word "Note."

Change the law if you have the votes, but you can't change what something
is.
Pass a law to call dogs cats, and cats dogs. A cat is still a cat, and a
dog still a
dog. No matter what the law says.

If you care to do the math the approximate world gold
reserve is known. In fact it's more certain than the amount of
FRN's floating in the
world economy. Any estimate you can make on the world supply of
FRN's is likely short by at least half.

You're right about FRNs and the gold supply. That's why we don't tie
FRNs to gold. Our economy is bigger than the world gold supply, and
it requires more money to run our economy than there is gold in the
world.

No it doesn't. If we tied our commerce to silver and gold we might
pay 15 cents per gallon of gasoline, and 5 cents per loaf of bread.
Or $500 for a new car.

Sure, if we could get the rest of the world to cooperate.

The dollar is worth whatever the Congress says it's worth. If the Congress
says
a dollar is equal to 1oz. silver and provides the coinage then prices will
adjust
overnight.
<snip>

Federal Reserve Notes were redeemable for lawful money why is
that so difficult to understand?

Lawful money turns out to be more FRNs. FRNs haven't been
redeemable for anything else for a long time.

Look up the term for lawful money. If you find a source that
defines it as FRN's please let me know where you found it. I'd be
very, very interested.

The Federal Reserve Act was amended in the 1930s to make FRNs legal
tender.
In 1934, the Gold Reserve Act eliminated redemption of FRNs in gold
and withdrew gold coinage from circulation, and in 1967, silver
redemption was eliminated (31 U.S.C. § 405 a-3), and most silver
coinage was stopped. So FRNs became legal money, and all other forms
became unavailable or illegal.

Legal Tender and Lawful Money describe different concepts.

Not according to the Federal Reserve. Sorry.

You did not answer my question if it was a branch of the federal government
or
not. Do you think the Federal Reserve is a government agency or a private
Bank?


The United States was bankrupt and could not afford to provide a
stable monitary device. FRN's are being printed in hugh sums to pay
for the war in Iraq and Afganistan. They enter the economy through the
defence contractors and agents who supply the military with the things
nessesary to support the war.

The US is not bankrupt. There is a stable monetary system, more or
less, and FRNs enter the economy via banks.

The only way for the government to pay anybody anything is to print money.
With
no intrinsic value. A debased currency accepted on faith alone.

The Supreme Court upheld these changes. I found two cases that
looked
like
they may be of interest: Norman v. Baltimore, 294 U.S. 240 (1935)
(upholding Congress' power over monetary polilcy) and Nortz v. United
States, 294 U.S. 317 (1935) (upholding forced redemption of gold
certificate in paper currency). I haven't read them, though, just
some commentary.

The Supreme Court upheld the Dred Scott case also.


Let me guess they never did re-define what a dollar is. Calling
something a dollar is not the same thing as having a dollar.

It doesn't matter what an abstract dollar is. It matters what legal
tender is.

Legal Tender is worthless. It takes an agency with guns and prisons to
ensure
it has no competition. If it had value it would not need the force of law
to
make them acceptable.

<snip>

Again, Munk's opinion

[that FRNs are not dollars]

is not dispositive. You can understand why
these clowns were prosecuted, but they seem to have found a legal
loophole. I'm not sure what comfort you're taking from the
non-convictions (besides enjoying the gov taking a beating). All it
means that you and I have to pick up the tab for the deadbeats.

You mean we are not already picking up the tab with the cost of
inflation? Or picking up the tab because of runaway spending in the
congress everytime a congressman wants to fund some feel good project
to buy votes at home?

Of course we are. Now we get to pick up Kahre's tab as well. Hope it
was worth the entertainment.

If the Congress followed it's charter there would be no controversy.

Who picked up the tab with over 900 earmarks in the last budget signed
into law? If the congress actually had to pay for what it wants
rather than print the money. Spending would be much easier to
control.

So there are other tabs. That justifies Kahre stiffing us too?

Kahre has read the law, and the Jury agreed with him. So he broke no law.
If the same things happens again and again then it will be obvious that the
law is broken. It is possible for government agents and agencies to break
the law. Or at least not respect the rule of law.

If they are not dollars, what are they?

They're legal tender.

Legal Tender laws are laws to force the people to accept worthless
money in exchange for goods and services.

If legal tender is worthless, then you won't mind sending me all of
yours.

Oldest dumbest arguement to the worthless paper arguement. What do
you think somebody in Germany in 1932 would say to that arguement
when he got paid at lunch time with 50 lbs of Deutchmarks so he could
go shopping before the prices rose again before quitting time?

One silver Deutchmark was worth $1,000,000 legal tender Deutchmarks
before it was all over. The U.S. Treasury is doing the same thing the
German
Treasury did. Just not to the same degree. If you have studied anything
about
the history of paper money, why not tell me a single case in the last 600
years
that did not end badly. One single case and I'll conceed that I may be all
wrong
on the state of FRN's.


If the money actually had worth there would
be no need for legal tender laws. Why? because merchants go into
business to exchange goods and services for money.

And legal tender makes that easier.

Untill the legal tender can not buy anything any longer.

I admitt I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack.

OK.

So if I can understand this I'm sure I'm not the only one.
What happens if
the U.S. Attorney tries and fails to prosicute others with the same
charges for
doing the same thing.

Pros*e*cute. They'll change the law. What do you think?

Oh! shall I flag every word you type or don't spell correctly?

Please do. Especially the important ones, like _prosecute_ and
_monetary_.

This is a courtesy to your reader.

My English Teacher at DeVry said it was very common for technically
oriented people to be poor spellers and literary types to be poor in
math skills.

And that's why your English teacher was at DeVry. It's an excuse for
laziness.

I guess a Journalism major that can't do trig. is lazy or stupid?

It's common in usenet if you have difficulty attacking someones logic,
attack their spelling or something else.

And yet I have no difficulty tearing apart your logic and sources (or
lack thereof). Go figure.

Only like the school yard bully does for laughs.

But the difference between FRN's and lawful money is clear.

The difference under the law is zero; FRNs are a proper subset of
lawful money.

The difference in commerce is zero, except for the fact that one
almost always loses value and the other almost always increases in
value when compared with each other.

So you say. Does this invalidate my point about what FRNs are?

In 1913 put $100 in the bank with interest, and put five $20 gold
pieces in a coffee can and see which one is worth more over time.

And your point? You don't like the Federal Reserve? I get that.

Do you like a thief?

Yet you can not show anywhere that FRN's have been defined as
lawful money. Unless the definition were changed not only by
custom, but by magic.

Legal money is legal tender. FRNs became legal tender during the New
Deal via amendments to the Federal Resserve Act, and the competition
currency was wiped out (or nearly so).

Legal money and Lawful money are not the same thing.

Says you. The Federal Reserve and federal law say otherwise. But
perhaps you can point to a legal basis for your claim.

You still can not show where the definition of a dollar was changed by law.
only by custom.
<snip>


Do you understand why I'm having a hard time following?

Yes I do. You have been well conditioned. An end product of some
90 years of conditioning on a population for concerned about day to
day, and less concerned about the long term. You seem to put a
whole lot of faith in the government, it's agents, and
instrumentalities to think for you.

No, I have little faith in the gov, but I recognize reality. FRNs
are legal tender; they're not promissory notes. This may be a good
thing or it may be a bad thing, but it is the real thing. I know the
difference between public debt and private debt. I know the
difference between public debt and the money supply. I know what
usury is. You seem to know none of these things.

In short the Matrix has you.

You understand that The Matrix is a fictional movie, right?

It's an allegory, a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning
through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one
subject under the guise of another.

Ah. You do understand that argument by allegory is unsound, no? But
perhaps it was just an offhand pop culture reference.

If you tell a big enough lie to someone often enough they will believe it's
the truth.

<snip>

When you figure that the dollar is only worth about 4% of
it's purchasing power in 1913 due to inflation that gold
would be worth about $32/oz The same goes for silver. There
is about $14 of silver in the old silver dollars. So one
silver dollar can still buy more than 4 gallons of gas in
many parts of the country.

Go ahead. Try pumping 4 gallons of gas and offering the
attendant a silver dollar. You've got the Bobby Kahre problem
in reverse.

I'm talking of the absolute value of the silver dollar compared
to the absolute cost of gasoline today. If we still used the
90% U.S. silver dollars you could buy 3 1/2 gallons of gasoline.

I've got some of those. How much gas do you think I can buy with
one?

Unlikely the gas station attendent knows what they are worth,
unless you ask them. Better to sell it on Ebay or to a reputable
coin dealer or even somebody who'll give you fair market value for
the silver minus the collectable added value. Even if the fellow
is ignorant of the true value of
the coin I'd bet you could buy more than a dollars worth of gas.

We're talking about using silver coins as legal tender. A smart pump
jockey might take my silver dollar and put his own money in the till,
but that's a differnt scenario -- essentially a numismatic
transaction followed by a fuel transaction. A stickler pump jocket
will insist that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

No I was not talking about using the silver coin as legal tender, I
was talking
about trading value for value. I had little trouble spending hundreds
of $10
Silver Libertys for gasoline and groceries. Since they were "not"
legal tender
I had not right to expect the merchant to accept them. In which case
I'd pull
out FRN's to make my purchase. Those $10 Silver Libertys are now
worth about $20.

What you've failed to take into account in all this is that
incomes are part of inflation. So, yeah. The purchasing power
of the dollar has declined in 1913, but inflation has increased
my wages since then. (Well, I wasn't alive in 1913, but you get
my drift.)

In 1913 it was possible for the husband to work, and the wife
stay home and raise the children. Today it is extremely
difficult for most households to earn enough to support a
family.

And your point? There are more poor people in the country today
than in 1913? Really?

Are you really surprised why this has happened?

You really think we're poorer as a country today than we were in
1913?

How do you define poor?

Take your pick. How about household income adjusted for inflation?

To bad income taxes are not adjusted for inflation.

The number of homeless? the number of people
on public support? Or perhaps the average savings rate of most
Americans. In 1913 more people had net worth. Today with credit cards
and consumer debt the average American is not as well off. If you
define a person's standard
of living as a measure of their relitive poverty or wealth you measure
apples to oranges.

We were warned that
it would happen again. It has happened in the past, but we did not
heed our own history. Or even Thomas Jefferson's warning.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the
issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the
banks...will deprive the people of all property until their
children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and
restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

The above is from Jefferson? Could I have a cite?


Thomas Jefferson is easy to look up. 5 seconds after googling Thomas
Jefferson & Banks brought up this link, and these quotes.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1325.htm

Yes, but nothing on this page contains the words "then by deflation."

<TJ quotes snipped>

Don't like the quotes because they do not support your arguement? He was
one of the best educated men of his day.

<snip>

What do you of rights?

What do I (know?) of rights? I know a bit about the Bill of
Rights.

I'll bet you support group rights over individual rights.

What are "group rights"?

A way to divide and conquer a population with their own permission.

<sigh>
Perhaps you could give me an example of a group right.
</sigh>

We have many such laws. For example if I want to rent a room in my
house to share expences. I can not select who I want to stay with me
and advertise accordingly.

This is false. The Fair Housing Act does not apply to home owners
renting space in their homes.

The local news paper does not seem to agree. Nor the local courts in
Atlanta
that required a Christian woman to rent a room to a Lesbian recently.

I might have the right not to rent to someone who is gay
depending on where I live.

See above.

I do have the right not to rent to someone who smokes.

I do
not have the right to rent my room based on a persons religion, race,
creed, sex,
or if they have children or not.

Again, these laws generally apply to people in the rental business.

The Americans with Disabilities Act creates more group rights.

But the ADA is about employment and public access.

If I drug test prospective employee's for a carpentry job because my
insurance company demands it. Do I want to hire someone who takes
dilantin to treat a seizure disorder?

You are not required to hire some whose disability makes it impossible
or dangerous to do his job.

A grey area that might cost thousands of dollars if someone makes a stink.

If he has a seizure and falls off the ladder or roof my
business could be ruined. You might be surprised how many employers
are more
concerned about legally prescribed drugs and much less worried about
some illegal
substances like marijauana. I'll pay the extra money to test for all
drug groups.

I can think of two rights that are exercised in concert with
others, collective bargaining and bringing class action suits.

What of a person's natural rights. You know the ones mentioned in
the Bill of Rights.

I can think of rights that depend on group membership but which
are exercised individually, e.g., the right to vote and protection
from certain kinds of discrimination.

There is no right to vote in the United States. You will not see
it defined anywhere in the Constitution.

Have you read the Constitution? It might be worth your while.

Article I, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen
every second Year by the People of the several States, and the
Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for
Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Who decides what the qualifications of an Elector are? The states can
pass laws defining who an elector is or is not. As long as the law is
uniform,

The states must allow voting, and the rules for electors allow for very
few disenfranchisements.

it may include someone of a certian age or other standards.

Of course. Are you complaining that children can't vote?

Not me! They changed the law recently to prevent people from running for
office.

Amendment 17:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from
each
State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator
shall
have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of
the State legislatures.

Presidents are technically chosen by electors, which are chosen
according to the rules of the state legislatures. Every state
provides for direct election of electors, so you'll have to go the
state constitutions for this right.

Every state provides for direct election for members of the most
numerous branch of their legislatures. Article IV, Section 4
guarantees a republican form of government for each state, and since
Reconstruction this
has explicitly included suffrage. Baker v Carr (one-man, one vote)
is based on this principle.

Amendment 15, Section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment 19
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
sex.

Amendment 24, Section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or
other election for President or Vice President, for electors for
President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment 26, Section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of
age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of age.

I should have been less general. There is no right to vote for
President of the United States.

Ah, then. Never mind.

A discussion a few months ago about voting rights. It's not an
issue I worry very much about.


Most other rights are individual rights, like freedom of speech,
due process, and the right to privacy.

A right to privacy? To your private papers i'm aware of but privacy
itself?

Yup. The Supreme Court has ruled that one cannot enjoy one's explicit
rights without a right to privacy. Roe v Wade is based on it.

What about a person's right to their property?

See the 5th Amendment. See local laws against theft.

This would include intellectual property?

See Article I, Section 8.

and one's labor also?

See the 13th Amendment.

so my labor is my property? I think the IRS has another opinion.

I support them all.

Just a guess.

I can't tell what you're guessing at. Did I answer your implied
question?

You skirted the question very skillfully.

What did I leave unanswered?

A person's natural rights include deciding what is best for
themselves, their
own bodies and self defence from intruders. So long as they don't
infringe on somebody elses Rights and Liberties.

For example I have the right to put in my body what I believe is best
for me, or
I have the right to use deadly force when I am threatend with violence
agianst me
or my family in my home or outside my home.

I agree.

Define people by the group they belong to.

No thanks.

There'a a lot of data out there. I choose to winnow my
sources by refusing to consider people who push the laetrile
cancer-cure scam.

I'm curious what kind of filter you use to winnow you
sources. You don't actually have to read your sources to
determine if they are correct or not. I suspect you judge
your sources based on the title or subject as much as
anything else.

I'll admit to winnowing my sources based on the smell test.
And it's possible to go wrong here, for instance I might
dismiss Shockley's work on semiconductors based on his racial
theories.

I know a woman cured of MS by using sea salt and met a
clinical nutritionist an MD who confirmed that sea salt can
cure MS.

This is another example that supports my skepticism. You're
simply too credulous. You know about a woman whose MS went
into remission after she ingested sea salt. And you've met an
MD who claims that sea salt can cure MS. Does sea salt cure
MS? Not on the basis of an anecdote and an appeal to
authority.

It is known that sea salt contains 80 minerals and elements. It
is also know
that humans have used sea salt as their primary source of salt
for thousands of years. I should be no great stretch to
understand that sea salt is likely more
healthy that pure sodium cloride in a persons diet.

It's a hypothesis. A good deal weaker than "sea salt can cure
MS." Has it been tested?

It must have been because the woman I talked to who claimed to be
cured of MS was only a very short conversation. The taxi fare was
less than $5. So I
looked up "MS" and "Cure" on the interent. It was only a couple of

years later
when I asked Dr. Cantrell about it. She stated matter of factly
that MS was cureable with real sea salt not processed and refined
sea salt.
The type available
in many grocery stores. Real sea salt looks a dirty brownish
color.

I don't know that sea salt will cure MS,

I thought you knew someone was cured by sea salt and an MD who
confirmed this.

I believe it to be so, but since I have no way to prove it

If you don't mind my saying so, you believe a lot of things you can't
prove.

The ability to prove something does not make it untrue. I'm sure you
and everybody else believe things you/they can not prove. The
existence or not of a Creator for example.

I'll rephrase (and leave aside the immanent.)

If you don't mind my saying so, you believe a lot of things for which
there is no evidence or for which there is contrary evidence.

I see a lot of contrary opinions. I see that opinions change from time to
time.
Like over the last 200 years on just what is or is not money.
Largely based on what and who has to gain from the opinion.

Same goes for medicine.

I must maintain some level
of skepticisim. That and I'd hate to be charged with giving
medical advice without a license.

I think your misguided opinions on medical issues are protected.

but I do know that the
medical establishment is less interested in low cost
preventitive measures than it is
making a profit. Not like the good old days when most hospitals
were run by one church or another.

Which good old days were these? The pre-polio-vaccine days? The
Spanish Influenza days?

Interesting thing about the polio vaccines. We gave them in the
U.S. but Europe did not.

This is nonsense. Particularly for the oral vaccine.

The polio epidemic ended in Europe about the same
time it did in the U.S.

I haven't been vaccinated for anything in 30 years, since I got
out of the military. I'm of above average health.

Vaccinations are usually for childhood diseases.

Of coarse

<sorry excuse="the devil">
So it was coarse sea salt? Why didn't you say so?
</sorry>

since many MD's will say it's impossible. It must be
impossible.

To be fair, what they actually say is that there's no
scientific evidence that it happens.

When it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to have a new
treatment approved. Why would anyone invest the money in
research that can never pay back the money invested? The FDA
prevents more treatments than it allows, and the treatment it
allows most often have serious and dangerous side effects.

There are more non-efficacious and unsafe treatments than there
are safe and effective ones. I'm not defending the FDA, but their
bad policy decisions don't reflect on the scientifc method.

I used to think science was above politics, that was before the
world wide global warming campaign. I'm old enough to remember the
"Global cooling campaign". In 20 or 30 years there will be another
chicken little campaign.

Oh, good. A climate change denier. Is there no crackpot position
you won't take?

Who said I denied climate change? I don't believe there is any
evidence that man has measureably changed the climate.

This is what I mean. There's plenty of evidence that man has
"measureably changed the climate."

Really? then why are so many scientists changing their minds from supporting
the idea of man caused global warming to natual climate change.


Of course science isn't immune from politics. It's a human endeavor.

I am willing to be convinced. But I suspect all you've got
is received knowledge that you haven't bothered to check.
Why didn't you find the USC concerning coinage?

I read it a long time ago

That's fine (no pun on silver intended). This is a newsgroup
intended for wide-ranging conversation; not a court of law
bound by rules of evidence. But I find it curious that your
conviction seems to be inversely proportional to your research
effort.

I think you could say the same thing about anybody's research
efforts. If I build a hybrid/electric bicycle using an electric
motor of my own design. It's sucsess will be based on my
research efforts, and my talents in a modest machine shop.

But I'm not talking about anybody; I'm talking about you. I'm not
talking about electric bicycles; I'm talking about your posts. See
below.

and I've read a great many other papers on the subject of
silver as money

and even silver as the most effective anti-biotics on the
market.

Silver is indeed an effective antibiotic. It kills living
things. Silver is a toxic heavy metal like lead and mercury, it
accumulates in the body where it has no known use and is
eliminated only slowly. It's a known carcinogen.

Really? what evidence do you have of silver's toxic effect on
humans?

Google "silver toxicity." The disease is called systemic argyria.

Actually I was well aware of this and it's rareity found some
interesting new literature.

It's been known for over 1000 years. The term was coined in 1840.
It was a rareity because people stopped using silver when modern
antibiotics were discovered. It's making a comeback among the
credulous.

Modern antibiotics have their own and serious side effects including
antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

While this is true, I fail to see it as a reason to ingest a toxic heavy
metal.

Anything is toxic in too high a dose. Including water. I'm curious what is
the
dose of silver high enough to cause health problems?

Basicly one should not treat themself
unless that have done a lot of research on the subject.

You, for instance?

If I learn of serious side effects, I'll moderate any treatments in
accordence.

Silver is a cumulative and long-lasting poison.

So far I have avoided unsafe so-called colloidal silver treatments.
Where are in the marketplace.

I submit you couldn't possibly know this.

I only use it to treat an active infection.

And your expertise in infectious disease comes from what?

It does not take a medical degree to know when you have an infection.

It does not *always* take a medical degree.

If I have questions of a medical nature my mother was a career RN and
my brother-in-law is an orthopedic surgeon.


Some solutions are not true colloidal solutions some pose more
danger than others, some have no silver content at all.



In the middle ages royalty would file silver into their food.
Causing their skin
to turn blue, thus the term (bluebloods) aside from the
undesirable effect of
turning blue

Doesn't it bother you that so much of what you think you know
isn't true? Argyria causes the skin to turn grey, not blue, and
what would that have to do with blood anyway?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria
Argyria (ISV from Greek: ??????? argyros silver + -ia) is a
condition caused by the ingestion of elemental silver, silver dust
or silver compounds.
The most dramatic symptom of argyria is that the skin becomes blue
or bluish-grey colored. Argyria may be found as generalized argyria
or local argyria. Argyrosis is the corresponding condition related
to the eye. The condition is believed to be permanent, but laser
therapy may be helpful.

The phrase "blue blood" somes from the Spanish "sangre azul," used
by those light-skinned Spaniards proud of their white skin, which
showed that they had no Moorish blood in them. The blue veins
near the skin's surface are more prominent in people with pale
skin.

I'll chalk that up to an urban legend then.

It's a start.

<snip>

Robert


.

Relevant Pages