I suggest you ask coldfoot. My guess is that he will simply say the antimony's arsenic concentration data (quite within maximum allowable concentration of 5000 ppm in 87% of all samples tested at WB in the last year or two) is "just another lie by the company." What else can he say to refute current hard data validated in an NI-43-101 report?

I'd like to know too.

People tend to focus on the early WB samples (15-16 years ago!) wherein in some samples, the antimony was low concentration (even at only ppm levels!) and the associated arsenic was relatively high (more than 10,000 ppm, or 1.0%).

You see, the higher the antimony concentration, the lower the arsenic, generally. Silverado's current sampled antimony is of such high concentration (more than 50% antimony), the arsenic and other impurities simply are not there in high concentrations.

It's a beautiful stroke of mother nature...