REPLY from Joe:
>I purposely omitted the second part of your communication, for it would be
>hard to validate. To explain, please allow the following:
>1) What if this person's blood and urine tests were positive for heavy
>metals? Does this mean that their contamination came from the powder?
>2) What if the person tested in the normal range? Does this mean that the
>powder does not have potential health problems?
>Now if we were to have 25 people step forward, then we have a realistic
>numbers game. And, let's face it, science is numbers. Demographics is the
>only way that you can gain facts. In such a test (which by the way I would
>love to see accomplished) you would need to have a cross section of people
>from various geographical locations to gain anything of substaintial proof.
>It is for this same reason that I requested powder from five different sources.
We totally agree, and mentioned the same type of procedure albeit not so
well organized and defined as you you have done. Our point in addressing
this at all was not that we felt there was any difference in each of our
perspectives on this, but that to conduct the first part of the test without
the second part also being carried out, will not tell us anything
conclusivley, other than what the material has in it from the perspective of
the laboratories involved. Once it is determined what this has in it, it
then must be determined how it would, or would not, accumulate in the bodies
of a wide range of different individuals, as you outlined.
The key issue here is; what are your intentions, to conduct only the first
part of what we originally proposed and call that good, or to conduct the
first part with the intention of being able to complete the process at some
point by conducting the second part? We understand the potential problems
with the second part, but that must be considered prior to embarking on this
if good science is to be forthcoming in its entirety.
Simeon and Maia
Crest In The Stone Mystery School