Dr. Bill Schenker, the physician who helped me design the experimental procedure that I followed to conduct my colloidal silver research, has had a chance to study my report. His comments are given below. Bill also comments on a range of colloidal silver issues. To see his entire remarks, go to the forum "archives", and look for "My First of its Kind Colloidal Silver Research Report" found under the "Health/Medicine" thread.

"*********************** Now please get this: NO ONE IN THE LAST TWO DECADES OR MORE HAS DONE ANY RESEARCH ON ELECTRICALLY PRODUCED COLLOIDAL SILVER THAT MAY BE CALLED, SPECIFICALLY: "QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS." THE LATTER MEASURES CHEMICAL REACTIONS BY MEASURING INPUTS AND OUTPUTS ACCURATELY, DOWN TO FRACTIONS OF A MILLIGRAM (ITSELF ONE THOUSANTH OF A GRAM.)

'QUANT'' IS A SPECIFIC BRANCH OF ANALYTIC CHEMISTRY THAT ALL OF US PHYSICAL SCIENCE MAJORS HAD TO TAKE IN COLLEGE TO GET OUR VARIOUS DEGREES. (DO THEY STILL TEACH THAT STUFF IN SCHOOL ANYMORE? -- OR HAS IT BEEN UPSTAGED AND CROWDED OUT BY 'REQUIRED' COURSES SUCH AS "HOW TO PROGRAM YOUR VCR"?)

***********************

AND NOW FOR SOME POSITIVE STUFF:

Now that I've vented my sarcasm let me re-state it: NO ONE, not our FDA, not the AMA, not our multi-national pharmaceutical cartels has done the simple basic research to find out if colloidal silver does or does not accumulate in the body (thus eventually causing Argyria.) THAT, folks is the significance of Roger Altman's recent set of experiments -- he has taken the first step in that kind of investigation. He has spent his own money, his own time, and collected his own poop and urine, & fingernails, and body hair, and taken the time to send many, many samples to a commercial lab for analysis, at $15 to $18 a pop (poop?)

Now if you are one of those who is already convinced that C.S. has no value, or is too dangerous to use -- then DON'T spend the money to partially reimburse Roger for the money he has already spent.

Also, if you are one of those who is already convinced that C.S. HAS value, and is NOT dangerous to use (including prophylactically, and maybe on a daily basis) then you too don't need to spend the money.

However, if you respect science like I do, and have reservations about any product that you pour down your gullet, I have to recommend unconditionally that you spend the bucks and send for Roger's paper which describes his methodology and surprising results. If we had an honest FDA or pharmaceutical industry or a medical fraternity that did its own thinking --- they would all jump at the opportunity to piggygback on Roger's work. As it stands at the end of our millennium however, not one of these entities is going to explore the matter any further (even if the sensible ones WEREN'T spending beau coup bucks on their y2k remediation at this moment.)

Finally I'd like to do a cut/paste of an email exchange that Roger and I had this week, to give you more of an idea of what kind of person Roger is, and why it makes sense to support his efforts. The following is my latest email to him, with his comments inside the brackets.

*****************************************

My bottomline question: can your results be relied on to give us a good picture of the excretion curve?

[That's where my characterization work will come in] Personally, I feel a lot more optimistic about the safety of C.S. after reading your work, but I can't claim to anybody that I'm sure of that. I will strongly recommend that those readers on the web who are SURE that C.S. is NOT safe, and those who are SURE that it IS safe don't need to bother with reading about experimental support re the safety issue. But for those of us who are obsessive-compulsive enough (such as I) nothing less than reading THE ONLY MODERN SCIENTIFIC TEST FOR SAFETY OF C.S., namely your experiments, is appropriate if you value the health of your family. My bottomline (sadly, to-be-unfulfilled) ambition re C.S. safety testing: to be able to participate in extended testing according to the outlines of your preliminary work --- but no time --- way behind on my y2k preps, the clock keeps ticking, and my Gloom & Doom predictions basically unchanged so far. I will somehow find the time to post a vigorous support of your work and its significance. [Bill: I really don't want to see you go out on a limb. There is no good reason to read into my study more than I have reported. LET THE STUDY STAND OR FALL ON ITS OWN MERITS, and let people decide for themselves whether not to take CS. You know better that almost anyone how complicated it is to do a comprehensive study on efficacy and safety. My work is preliminary and barely a first step. But it IS a beginning, and should be judged in this light.]

Hopefully it will help some people better take care of their post-y2k health problems and at the same time help partially at least reimburse you for your time, troubles, and expense.

[You and I both know that writing research reports is not going to make me rich, or compensate me monetarily even for my out-of-pocket costs. But if enough people help (monetarily, or even through their own research and Internet discussion) I will continue this work beyond what I would have done alone, and in that way we can ALL benefit. And you must know by now I simply LOVE doing this type of thing -- I even developed a novel (by my standards anyway) way of sampling and preparing feces for analysis that isn't TOO repulsive]"

-- Roger Altman (RogAltman@AOL.com), April 19, 1999

Answers

Roger Altman,

OK, I am going to order a copy of that research report from you. After going over it I intend to report back to this forum, giving my impressions, whatever they may be. Is that acceptable to you?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 19, 1999.

Gordon:

By all means. I think reporting back to the forum about your impression of my report would be quite helpful to all concerned.

You can contact me directly by email to get details about how to order it.

Roger Altman

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), April 19, 1999.