750ml Colloidal Silver - $29

[BitCoinUser123]

I`m still relatively new here, but this is thus far one of the most epic argument threads I have seen.

As far as the colloidal silver thing - if you
1) Believe the OP`s stance on the effects of colloidal silver
2) Trust his methods
3) Believe that the stuff works

Then go for it.

Scroll to the bottom for a summary of the argument and conclusions, as I see them.

I`m new to the thread and the community, so I apologize in advance if I offend or upset.  It is my intention to consolidate and to share my own views on this subject, but it is not my intention to step on the toes of the OP or any of the previous participants.

I have in past used all kinds of natural / herbal / folk remedies, including this stuff.  Some of them (anecdotally) worked for the intended purposes.  Some of them do in fact have reproducible and / or peer-reviewed evidence to back them, but Randomized Clinical Trials are not the singular method of assessing clinical usefulness.  Evidence-based medicine is great, and it is the single most effective method of allocating scarce medical resources in a way that yields the greatest gains over time to large numbers of people.  However, it is equally disingenuous to say `RCTs or it didn`t happen` as it is to say `Dr. Bozo van Huckster writes of using these products on himself, his chickens, and a variety of other patients.  He also writes of OTHER holistic health professionals who think he is the bees` knees.` (No disrespect to OP or to holistic health professionals - that is simply bad writing with an appeal to authority in place of actual evidence, even where that evidence may in fact exist).

I`m not criticizing the validity of either of those points.  I`m saying that there are standards of evidence both beyond the OP`s and before the standard of an RCT, which does in fact have a lot of the biases alluded to, not least of which is patentability and thereby profit motive for major pharmaceutical companies.

In the USA unlike most other Western countries, people are permitted to sell whatever they damn well please, provided that they do not make any claims that it is intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease or disorder.  The exception is when an item is proven to be innately harmful, in which case it is simply illegal to be sold *as a health food or supplement* although  it may remain available for sale for other purposes.  However, `harmful` is a sliding scale depending on the gravity of the situation (which on my view is shorthand for political expediency).

My view is that the system and the free(ish) market are working so long as you are able to more or less any supplement or product, produced by any method that appeals to you, without making unproven claims that the product is suitable to diagnose, treat or cure any disease.  But the OP has in fact crossed from selling a generic supplement which *somebody*, *somewhere* has used for a particular purpose, into the realm of assuring that it can be used to diagnose, treat or cure a range of disorders.  That could stand him in bad stead with the FDA or relevant regulators in other countries.

I`m not arguing about the efficacy of this particular product.  I am telling you that if you don`t have an appropriately Randomized Clinical Trials and/or reports in peer-reviewed articles about a substance, you cannot legally claim that it will serve to diagnose, treat or cure a given disease.  The product may well be useful for the stated purpose, but you can`t legally make that direct causal claim.  If you want to discuss what it has done for you PERSONALLY, go ahead.  If you want to produce anecdotal examples of other people it has helped, or clearly outline cases where it was used in past (both of which you seem to have done), then fill your boots.  But I can say pretty conclusively that assuring the product is in FACT useful for diagnosing, treating or curing a range of diseases or illnesses falls foul of the guidance on this matter.  Whether those rules are arbitrary, unfair, or only enforced by jackbooted thugs is a totally separate issue.

I have extensive involvement with modern medicine, as well as `folklore` and holistic medicine.  I grew up in a community that would use poultices and herbal remedies of all sorts to treat various things - but with that said, we were in a fairly remote area and had direct personal access to the relevant plants.  The reproducible nature of many these effects (be it aloe to speed burn healing, homemade probiotic yogurt to improve digestive ailments, whatever) does at least lead to the suggestion that some of them are effective, to some degree, for some specific individuals, in some specific instances.  In some cases this definitely does include placebo effect, which is frequently more powerful even than pharmaceuticals.  Thus, if someone has an ailment which I have experienced and they are finding the modern medical response insufficient or unduly expensive, I have no problem explaining the methods I have seen or used in past.  That leaves it to the individual in question to determine whether and how well it works, as well as to do all relevant research to assess safety of the methods.

I think that it`s a problem for a seller to assert that a product WILL have specific health effects when (under law) those effects have been inadequately proven.  I think it is a problem for customers to purchase such an item purely on the basis that the seller said as much.

I similarly think that it is a problem to suggest that without an RCT, any given product is ineffective and should be outlawed.  As someone who has had cancer, and who would not have lived into adolescence without modern Western / allopathic medical intervention, including radical surgery, I have great respect for modern medicine and specifically for the evidence-based school of thought.  To claim that ONLY Western medicine or that ONLY evidence-based medicine (which is a still-narrower sub-school of thought) has any validity, is hubris. 

People have the freedom to eat, drink, and generally do what they want.  With that freedom comes a responsibility to question and research everything people say.  The law (as it currently stands) permits you to make claims as to health benefits only in certain evidentiary circumstances.  I don`t claim that these are the right circumstances, and I don`t claim that the claims permitted are always perfect - but there is a certain degree of consistency, and it leads people to a position of comfort, allowing them to trust certain health / medical claims without having to themselves become experts in the relevant fields.

If the OP wants to sell his silver water, more power to him.  I believe that`s what radical freedom is about.  If further commenters want to doubt the validity of his claims, more power to them also.  I think these claims should be doubted.  But it`s ingenuous for both sides to pre-determine what will constitute evidence and then rule out the possibility of the other side having any validity.

In this matter, if you want to be safe, you need to become an expert in the matter and then decide for yourself.  I personally will not be imbibing any form of liquid silver in any quantity, but then I also minimize intake of silver through fish.  My favourite athletic garments (Under Armour, actually) and running-specific socks have small amounts of silver built into the fabric as one of the antibacterial and possibly antifungal agents that keep them from stinking to high heaven after I`ve been wearing them and running / working all day.  The silver preparation (which also includes chemical antimicrobial agents) does work, anecdotally, as when wearing them I do not smell like a homeless man even after a long day of travelling and hauling luggage.

I think that we can all generally agree that:

- Silver (in various forms) is known to have antibacterial effects.  Medical and general fact. Known for a long time, as evidenced by materials on both sides throughout this thread.
- Current medical opinion is that there is insufficient information to rate safety or effectiveness in treating most medical conditions with colloidal silver.
- Silver (in various forms) is believed by some people to have antifungal effects.  There is controversy, and inadequate evidence to describe it as a medical certainty.
- Silver (in various forms) is believed by some people to have antiviral effects.  There is controversy, and inadequate evidence to describe it as a medical certainty.
- Silver is not an essential mineral in the human body like copper, zinc, iron, magnesium, etc.  Medical and general fact.
- You may experience drug interactions if you take colloidal silver with tetracycline, quinolones and thyroxine medications. (Medical fact)
- Silver itself is not toxic, but most silver salts are.  Medical and biological fact.
- Silver is used in food coloring; it has the E174 designation and is approved in the European Union for this purpose (But not the United States).
- Silver ingestion can lead to a skin condition called Argyria (or argyrosis in the eye)

This is a permanent skin pigmentation change - making you look like a bluish tin man.  This is a medical fact.  The specific concentration of silver necessary to lead to this condition is not well know from the research that I can see.  It is clear that a lower concentration of imbibed silver would (at least) take a longer time to lead to such a condition.  If the concentration is sufficiently low that your organs are able to process and excrete it, then you may indefinitely avoid this disorder.  This disorder is apparently not itself harmful, but may be accompanied by other side effects depending on the type of silver ingested.

Miracles are (at best) exceedingly rare, and miracle cures all the more so.  Eating properly, exercising, and sleeping will do amazing things for you.  My colleagues think that I must have some secret because I am never sick - but those boring things are pretty much the answer for me.

Whether you are buying over the counter OR prescription drugs OR `natural` health supplements, make sure you`ve done your research.

I just saw that this thread was long, convoluted and tough to read for a newcomer.  I came away saying "What, if anything have we concluded here?"  I don`t think there HAS been a conclusion, nor do I think that there realistically can be.  Some believe the OP to be malicious and willfully ignorant, while the OP and some with similar views believe all opposed to be blinded followers of statism.  I don`t think that either one of those is strictly the case, but it is clear that both sides disagree strongly and that each has strong and somewhat sound personal reasons for their viewpoints.

As far as I`m concerned, you can undertake any kind of dietary regime you like, but it is wise to make sure that you understand what exactly these things are really doing to your body.  In general, the unchallenged word of a salesman (whether friendly bitcoiner or Big Pharma) or of either a fan or a detractor with any kind of ideological bias for or against entire classes of substances (no disrespect to earlier participants) are poor bases on which to make important health decisions.  Nobody but you (and to some degree, the people who love or rely upon you) will be affected by your health decisions.  I recommend you take ownership of those decisions and make sure you`re using the best information available as determined by the value system which you consider most relevant.  If you only trust Randomized Clinical Trials, search the medical literature and make a decision based on the information contained therein.  If small trials and personal anecdotes coupled with a examination of the chemical compounds in question are good enough, have at`er.  Decide what evidence hurdle you need met and make your choices on that basis.  I think that everybody should have the right to make free, informed choices on what products they will buy.  Sellers should absolutely be forbidden from making unsubstantiated or unprovable claims, and sellers should think carefully about what those words mean before speaking about their products.

But the bottom line is that consumers should not be assumed to be stupid.  If I want to drink raw milk, eat less-than-completely cooked food, or consume dubious metallic potions, I have the right to do so.  I will ensure that I have adequate information, and I will make myself very comfortable that the seller isn`t confused or misrepresenting his product, and then I will make a buying decision.

Again, I apologize if I seem at all to be soapboxing and I hope this post is useful.

[1714879882]

1714879882

[1714879882]

1714879882

[1714879882]

1714879882

[1714879882]

1714879882

[TECSHARE]

BitCoinUser123,

Your seemingly non-bias points at the beginning of this gigantic screed later revealed themselves to be nothing more than the same arguments already made here while attempting to give your own argument validity by admitting your own human fallibility. Your ego doesn't rule your logic, you want a cookie?

As far as documented empirical data, you claim there are no studies supporting the safety and efficacy of colloidal silver, and I argue that you haven't bothered to even read thru this thread completely to read them, let alone research this subject yourself. As far as FDA regulation, it is designed to crush anything but corporate sanctioned pharmacological and food products, also giving those industries a pass on some very important regulations that ACTUALLY protect us from harm on a global scale.

But hey, I guess this one guy selling silver suspended in water is the real threat, lets all focus on him and pretend we have expertise because that guy said colloidal silver is bad, all the while never once trying it yourself, talking to anyone who has, or spending a single minute of your time to actually research the subject.

The fact is people attack this subject with almost a fundamentalist religious view - it doesn't matter if colloidal silver has been proven to be safe or effective because I BELIEVE it is harmful! If you dare to tell me otherwise I will attack you as if you threatened my faith. This type of belief system is pervasive in EVERY field, its not hard to spot once you recognize it for what it is - ego masturbation.

[BitCoinUser123]

Neither the rudeness nor the condescension are necessary. 

I`m not claiming that there are no studies.  However, there are not any Randomized Controlled Trials demonstrating the efficacy of ingestion of colloidal silver for the purposes of curing any disease. That lack is for many reasons, including the fact that the FDA is predisposed toward protecting the interests of Big Pharma and encouraging the use of patentable chemical extracts and synthetic compounds, making it unlikely that they would ever acknowledge such a study.  If you consider the FDA to be a racket and you reject the validity of western industrial medicine/Big Pharma - well, I don`t completely agree, but I don`t consider it an altogether unreasonable viewpoint either. You`re certainly right on one thing though - if both sides of the argument can't recognize the other side's points as even having valid bases, the whole discussion dissolves into a spat between  opposing faiths with each side trying to cite its holy book for evidence.

At any rate, the absence of those particular studies is a fact, and it is a dealbreaker for some people.  That`s their choice, on the basis of the information that is important to them.  Maybe they need to broaden their horizons, maybe we need a far better vetting system than the FDA and the likes of Pfizer.

My post could have been shorter, but you can scroll through and not read it.  I thought an approximate, relatively balanced restatement might help newcomers who didn`t plan to read the whole thread but who might put up with my `gigantic screed.  Maybe I was wrong.  If so, ignoring me would serve you better than trying to run me down.

I tried to summarize the stuff that was in minimal dispute, and the stuff that was in serious dispute.  There are points FOR silver's historical use as an antiseptic, there is the point that not all silver is created equal and different kinds have different effects on the human body.  There are also points that could support a position against human consumption of silver in any form.  People can make up their own minds.

I did read through the entire thread, and I did spend more than a single minute to actually research the subject, even though I didn't come away with the precise view that you do.  That research is why I didn`t attack, and that is why I have no desire to discredit the product.  Maybe it works, maybe it doesn`t.  I don`t personally have enough evidence to convince myself one way or the other.  I`m entirely confident it won`t kill you the first time you drink it, and if it is prepared properly I wouldn`t expect it to kill you with prolonged usage.  I`m more interested in encouraging people to research it thoroughly for themselves than in pressing them to adopt a particular viewpoint. 

Snide condescension doesn't support the idea that you`re enlightened and anybody who doesn`t see things your way is a blinded zealot.  Your rudeness is kind of alienating to newcomers who are either honestly skeptical or who have questions but still might consider using the stuff.  I don`t think colloidal silver is public enemy # 1, but I also don`t yet share your entire viewpoint.  Not an attack.

I`m sorry if my original post was longer than you`d like, but I am not your enemy.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm kind of surprised you believe in the science of colloidal silver and not homeopathy.

Your surprise is entirely the result of your ignorance and subsequent flawed premises.  Chief among them being that the oligodynamic effect and homeopathy are related, and not entirely separate, phenomena.

Here, I'll be altruistic and provide you with a clue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligodynamic_effect

The oligodynamic effect (Greek: oligos = few, Greek: dynamis = force) was discovered in 1893 by the Swiss Karl Wilhelm von Nägeli as a toxic effect of metal ions on living cells, algae, molds, spores, fungi, viruses, prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms, even in relatively low concentrations.

The exact mechanism of action is still unknown.  Data from silver suggest that these ions denature enzymes of the target cell or organism by binding to reactive groups, resulting in their precipitation and inactivation.  Silver inactivates enzymes by reacting with the thiol groups to form silver sulfides.  Silver also reacts with the amino-, carboxyl-, phosphate-, and imidazole-groups and diminish the activities of lactate dehydrogenase and glutathione peroxidase.

Silver is capable of rendering stored drinking water potable for several months. For this reason, water tanks on ships and airplanes are often "silvered".  Silver compounds such as silver sulfadiazine are used externally in wound and burn treatments.[5] Silver nanoparticles, obtained by irradiating a silver nitrate solution with an electron beam, are effective bactericides, destroying gram-negative species immune to conventional antibacterial agents.  Silver-coated medical implants and devices have been shown to be more resistant to biofilm formation.

Now you have no excuse to continue laboring under the false belief that colloidal silver has anything whatsoever to do with homeopathy (or Cisplatin). 

Thank you for your interest in Sacred Silver, the only colloidal silver produced exclusively for the Bitcoin community!

[iCEBREAKER]

I`m still relatively new here, but this is thus far one of the most epic argument threads I have seen.

Woot!  Thanks.  That's high praise considering This. Is.  B I T C O I N T A L K, the epicenter of all Internet Nerd Drama.   

dubious metallic potions

The oligodynamic effect has been established science since 1893.  Source: v. Nägeli K.W. 1893. Über oligodynamische Erscheinungen in lebenden Zellen. Neue Denkschr. Allgemein. Schweiz. Gesellsch. Ges. Naturweiss. Bd XXXIII Abt 1.

Rolling your eyes and indulging in unjustified snark only make you a doubting Thomas, not cool or insightful.

Neither the rudeness nor the condescension are necessary.

I'll consider that a mea culpa for your "dubious potion" wisecrack.   

Snide condescension doesn't support the idea that you`re enlightened

OK, OK.  We forgive your previous misbehavior.  No need to keep apologizing and beating yourself up for it.  Let's move on, as pals. 

[Noitev]

Whatever, I wasted too much time on this. All i suggest is setting the price to something like, $10. You are right that it does purify water, but the health benefit claims are dubious. Using minute amounts of Iodine and alcohol both have antimicrobial properties, but you can buy it much cheaper and it's probably better considering we know how it's properties work.

[grue]

The fact is people attack this subject with almost a fundamentalist religious view - it doesn't matter if colloidal silver has been proven to be safe or effective because I BELIEVE it is harmful! If you dare to tell me otherwise I will attack you as if you threatened my faith. This type of belief system is pervasive in EVERY field, its not hard to spot once you recognize it for what it is - ego masturbation.

No, I attack this because I don't want other people to get their hopes up buying a quack product. Their time and money can be better used finding real cures, not some cure-all supported by anecdotal evidence. But apparently, him and many others don't have a problem with pure anecdotal evidence. In fact, they either don't care, or deny the documented issues with anecdotal evidence:

IDC about the theoretical hobgoblins (bias, variables, and placebos, OH MY!)

The thing is, if a product really did work, it should be reproducible in many environments, including RCTs. However, there are no RCTs supporting colloidal silver's efficacy. iCEBREAKER thinks this is totally ok because no one will ever fund such a study, therefore it's totally ok to believe in colloidal silver without rigorous evidence.

[BitCoinUser123]

Let's move on, as pals. 

Deal. 

[TECSHARE]

The fact is people attack this subject with almost a fundamentalist religious view - it doesn't matter if colloidal silver has been proven to be safe or effective because I BELIEVE it is harmful! If you dare to tell me otherwise I will attack you as if you threatened my faith. This type of belief system is pervasive in EVERY field, its not hard to spot once you recognize it for what it is - ego masturbation.

No, I attack this because I don't want other people to get their hopes up buying a quack product. Their time and money can be better used finding real cures, not some cure-all supported by anecdotal evidence. But apparently, him and many others don't have a problem with pure anecdotal evidence. In fact, they either don't care, or deny the documented issues with anecdotal evidence:

IDC about the theoretical hobgoblins (bias, variables, and placebos, OH MY!)

The thing is, if a product really did work, it should be reproducible in many environments, including RCTs. However, there are no RCTs supporting colloidal silver's efficacy. iCEBREAKER thinks this is totally ok because no one will ever fund such a study, therefore it's totally ok to believe in colloidal silver without rigorous evidence.

Riddle me this smart guy....
If you truly believe that there is no evidence unless there are RCTs conducted... what magical part of science allows you to declare colloidal silver INEFFECTIVE without any RCTs? Funny how your logic only seems to work for your argument but anything contrary just gets glossed over.

[ISAWHIM]

Colloidal silver turns you blue... DO NOT DRINK IT or use it to soak your skin in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahihGKZC5Kk

Don't buy this crap. It gives you permanent irreversible damage to your body. That is why no doctor uses this, and the FDA has warnings against people trying to sell this on the market.

You might as well drink bleach... it kills pathogens too!

FYI, colloidal silver kills GOOD and BAD pathogens. Just like bleach.

It is good for you to wash your counters and toilets with, but bleach is more effective and cheaper.

[TECSHARE]

Colloidal silver turns you blue... DO NOT DRINK IT or use it to soak your skin in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahihGKZC5Kk

Don't buy this crap. It gives you permanent irreversible damage to your body. That is why no doctor uses this, and the FDA has warnings against people trying to sell this on the market.

You might as well drink bleach... it kills pathogens too!

FYI, colloidal silver kills GOOD and BAD pathogens. Just like bleach.

It is good for you to wash your counters and toilets with, but bleach is more effective and cheaper.

Polly want a cracker? Way to not read the thread.

For anyone who is not resistant to educating themselves: http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=MD&Year=2010&ManuscriptID=c0md00069h&Iss=Advance_Article#cit59

[grue]

Riddle me this smart guy....
If you truly believe that there is no evidence unless there are RCTs conducted... what magical part of science allows you to declare colloidal silver INEFFECTIVE without any RCTs? Funny how your logic only seems to work for your argument but anything contrary just gets glossed over.

That's a strawman. All I said was that there was no evidence showing colloidal's effectiveness in curing, preventing or diagnosing any known disease.

[TECSHARE]

Riddle me this smart guy....
If you truly believe that there is no evidence unless there are RCTs conducted... what magical part of science allows you to declare colloidal silver INEFFECTIVE without any RCTs? Funny how your logic only seems to work for your argument but anything contrary just gets glossed over.

That's a strawman. All I said was that there was no evidence showing colloidal's effectiveness in curing, preventing or diagnosing any known disease.

Not at all. My very point is by YOUR OWN LOGIC you are no more correct concluding it is ineffective than he is concluding it IS effective. Since neither position can be proven according to your standards, you are just as erroneous concluding it is ineffective, and therefore you are a hypocrite.

You aren't here to protect anyone. You are here to stroke your ego and attack people whom you do not agree with because it entertains you. A quick look thru your post history demonstrates this clearly. Stop patronizing this forum like they are all children incapable of critical thought to make their own choices.

[grue]

Not at all. My very point is by YOUR OWN LOGIC you are no more correct concluding it is ineffective than he is concluding it IS effective. Since neither position can be proven according to your standards, you are just as erroneous concluding it is ineffective, and therefore you are a hypocrite.

you do realize in medicine, the null hypothesis is that substance x does not cure/prevent/diagnose any known illness, right? therefore, without any conclusive proof, it's assumed that substance x does nothing. (inb4 you claim this standard is because of big phrama/government)

You aren't here to protect anyone. You are here to stroke your ego and attack people whom you do not agree with because it entertains you. A quick look thru your post history demonstrates this clearly. Stop patronizing this forum like they are all children incapable of critical thought to make their own choices.

ad hominem

[TECSHARE]

Not at all. My very point is by YOUR OWN LOGIC you are no more correct concluding it is ineffective than he is concluding it IS effective. Since neither position can be proven according to your standards, you are just as erroneous concluding it is ineffective, and therefore you are a hypocrite.

you do realize in medicine, the null hypothesis is that substance x does not cure/prevent/diagnose any known illness, right? therefore, without any conclusive proof, it's assumed that substance x does nothing. (inb4 you claim this standard is because of big phrama/government)

You aren't here to protect anyone. You are here to stroke your ego and attack people whom you do not agree with because it entertains you. A quick look thru your post history demonstrates this clearly. Stop patronizing this forum like they are all children incapable of critical thought to make their own choices.

ad hominem

Try reading your own wiki articles before you post them. Just because some one described this situation doesn't AGAIN mean you get to declare the substance in question ineffective. You don't practice science you practice selective learning. My point has been left unchallenged. You proclaim it is not scientific to make assumptions, and by your own standards (which you dutifully ignore for the sake of ego) your conclusions HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS.

"a null hypothesis is potentially rejected or disproved on the basis of data that is significantly under its assumption, but never accepted or proved. In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis, and these are decided between on the basis of data, with certain error rates. These two approaches criticized each other, though today a hybrid approach is widely practiced and presented in textbooks."

As far as the claim of ad hominem, it is in fact not a personal attack. Clearly this is an observation of your behavior I am noting over a period of years DIRECTLY RELATED to your activities here. If you would like to see real ad hominem attacks I would be glad to go back in your post history to find some examples for you.

[grue]

Try reading your own wiki articles before you post them. Just because some one described this situation doesn't AGAIN mean you get to declare the substance in question ineffective. You don't practice science you practice selective learning. My point has been left unchallenged. You proclaim it is not scientific to make assumptions, and by your own standards (which you dutifully ignore for the sake of ego) your conclusions HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS.

Are you just circling back on yourself? I'll say it again: I never claimed that colloidal silver was ineffective. I am claiming that no one should take colloidal silver to treat/prevent/diagnose an illness because there is no evidence showing it does.

Why anyone would use a product to treat/diagnose/prevent an illness, even though there is no rigorous evidence showing its effectiveness is beyond me.

"a null hypothesis is potentially rejected or disproved on the basis of data that is significantly under its assumption, but never accepted or proved. In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis, and these are decided between on the basis of data, with certain error rates. These two approaches criticized each other, though today a hybrid approach is widely practiced and presented in textbooks."

and if you look one sentence after that...

This hybrid is in turn criticized as incorrect and incoherent – see statistical hypothesis testing.

top lel

As far as the claim of ad hominem, it is in fact not a personal attack. Clearly this is an observation of your behavior I am noting over a period of years DIRECTLY RELATED to your activities here. If you would like to see real ad hominem attacks I would be glad to go back in your post history to find some examples for you.

that is the very definition of an ad hominem. you're referencing my post history, which has nothing to do with my arguments presented in this thread. At best that's a red herring.

[TECSHARE]

Not at all. My very point is by YOUR OWN LOGIC you are no more correct concluding it is ineffective than he is concluding it IS effective. Since neither position can be proven according to your standards, you are just as erroneous concluding it is ineffective, and therefore you are a hypocrite.

you do realize in medicine, the null hypothesis is that substance x does not cure/prevent/diagnose any known illness, right? therefore, without any conclusive proof, it's assumed that substance x does nothing. (inb4 you claim this standard is because of big phrama/government)

You aren't here to protect anyone. You are here to stroke your ego and attack people whom you do not agree with because it entertains you. A quick look thru your post history demonstrates this clearly. Stop patronizing this forum like they are all children incapable of critical thought to make their own choices.

ad hominem

First of all you are just repeating yourself at this point. I understand the theory completely all though I am not convinced you do. Your key word there is ASSUMED, which is not a fact based conclusion. Also I might remind you for the second time that this theory is not accepted as indisputable fact. It is a process method for organizing information, not some magical definition you can pull out of a Google search to make you more correct.

If it was indisputable fact, no one would ever discover ANYTHING new. Additionally you are taking parts of my conversations from before where I was talking about pharmaceutical corporations not funding RCTs out of context and attempting to make it look as if that is my logic behind every single point I make. This time it is about YOU and the failure in your own logic. Taking my words out of context wont help you. The fact is you don't even follow your own standards that you attempt to apply to others, and you are contradicting yourself by your own logic. Just pretending you don't, or copy and pasting a thousand Wikipedia definitions wont make it less true.

[TECSHARE]

Try reading your own wiki articles before you post them. Just because some one described this situation doesn't AGAIN mean you get to declare the substance in question ineffective. You don't practice science you practice selective learning. My point has been left unchallenged. You proclaim it is not scientific to make assumptions, and by your own standards (which you dutifully ignore for the sake of ego) your conclusions HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS.

Are you just circling back on yourself? I'll say it again: I never claimed that colloidal silver was ineffective. I am claiming that no one should take colloidal silver to treat/prevent/diagnose an illness because there is no evidence showing it does.

Why anyone would use a product to treat/diagnose/prevent an illness, even though there is no rigorous evidence showing its effectiveness is beyond me.

"a null hypothesis is potentially rejected or disproved on the basis of data that is significantly under its assumption, but never accepted or proved. In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis, and these are decided between on the basis of data, with certain error rates. These two approaches criticized each other, though today a hybrid approach is widely practiced and presented in textbooks."

and if you look one sentence after that...

This hybrid is in turn criticized as incorrect and incoherent – see statistical hypothesis testing.

top lel

As far as the claim of ad hominem, it is in fact not a personal attack. Clearly this is an observation of your behavior I am noting over a period of years DIRECTLY RELATED to your activities here. If you would like to see real ad hominem attacks I would be glad to go back in your post history to find some examples for you.

that is the very definition of an ad hominem. you're referencing my post history, which has nothing to do with my arguments presented in this thread. At best that's a red herring.

Since you decided to edit your post I will reply again.
"Why anyone would use a product to treat/diagnose/prevent an illness, even though there is no rigorous evidence showing its effectiveness is beyond me."

Have you ever considered that no one needs you to make these conclusions for them? Have you ever considered that perhaps you may not know as much as you think you do, and you may in fact be inhibiting people from seeking cheap, safe and effective medical treatment? Do you ever think to yourself "Hey I spend an inordinate amount of time posting in marketplace threads acting like bored a 2bit ineffectual mall security guard."?

A few reasons why people might turn to using colloidal silver, without RCTs completed to your personal satisfaction:

1. Allergies - A lot of people are allergic to many types of antibiotics and have a very limited selection of antibiotics.

2. Antibiotic resistant bacteria - These kind of super bugs are increasingly common, and often 2nd or 3rd line antibiotics are being used ineffectively. Colloidal silver operates on a different principal of action that is very difficult for bacteria to mutate a resistance to.

3. It is safe - Regardless of your personal standards millions of people use colloidal silver regularly. If you disagree please provide me a single case of injury caused by colloidal silver which was properly prepared and used in moderation. (tip: blueman doesn't count. He admitted to drinking gallons a month in addition to using impure tap water and STERLING silver (includes toxic impurities like silver salts). Also this isn't an injury it is a cosmetic condition)

4. Viruses - Colloidal silver has been shown to be actively antiviral. There are a mere handful of antiviral drugs, and their efficacy and safety is questionable in many cases.

5. TONS of drugs that went thru endless RCTs were later shown to be unsafe, defective, or even lethal. How is that a pinnacle of scientific standards? The medical industry is increasingly showing itself to be more concerned with profits than healthcare and people are losing faith in this system and are forced to make these choices for themselves. Also I might add these RCT's that are used to approve drugs are funded by the company producing it. Conflict of interest much? Additionally who would fund the RCT for colloidal silver if it can't be owned under patent?

6. Not everyone can afford to spend hundreds of dollars to see a doctor so they can tell them what they already know every time they get a sore throat or a cold. Not everyone is insured. Not everyone can manage a day off of work or the STACK of costs associated with our medical system. The medical industry doesn't always have your best interests in mind, often all they have in mind is the bottom line.

7. Not everyone requires mommy and daddy to bureaucratically approve things that via ones own ability to learn and use critical thought can be discovered to be beneficial. Just because you haven't matured beyond the point that you require the state to make all of your choices for you does not mean the rest of us have to live under those  same conditions. Humanity has made scientific discoveries before RCTs existed, and they will continue to do so with or without them. Additionally there are REAMS of studies on colloidal silver if you ever bother to read them. You attack these people because you yourself are not free, and real freedom threatens you because you are afraid of the responsibilities that come with it. Therefore you have to reassure your ego that your belief system is correct by going on the offensive on a subject which CLEARLY has no direct effect on you as some one who is not interested in purchasing this product.

That is just a handful of reasons why some one might use colloidal silver regardless of lack of industry backing. There are a lot more but I don't have the time.

As far as your "null hypothesis" argument, you know how science works right? There are many different schools of thoughts, methods, specialties, and processes which can some times disagree with one another in theory until conclusive empirical data is produced. This means opposing theories exist until one, all, or none of them are proved to be correct.

Also do you know the definition of hypothesis?

"hy·poth·e·sis  (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement."

It is basically a fancy way of saying an ASSUMPTION "model". You can't just pick any theory out of a hat and conclude it is standard industry practice applicable whenever convenient for your argument. That is not how science works, you don't just get to pick apart a tiny unrelated facet and ignore the whole. Frankly I think you have a serious lack of a scientific education. Empirical processes is pretty much day 1 stuff.

Also it is not an ad hominem attack if it is a direct cause of your bias in presentation of your "points", it is in fact directly related to the discussion on a logical level, regardless of your personal sensitivity to it.

Why do I keep wasting my time with you? I am tired of watching willfully ignorant, obsessive, arrogant, pushy people overshadow beneficial discoveries with FUD for the sole reason that the government didn't give it a stamp. For you this has nothing to do with science or medicine and everything to do with your groveling statist ideals and fearfulness. Your statements not only clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of your own words, but your obsessive fixation with bureaucratic approval.

[Noitev]

lots of text

can the both of you stop arguing?

[grue]

Since you decided to edit your post I will reply again.
"Why anyone would use a product to treat/diagnose/prevent an illness, even though there is no rigorous evidence showing its effectiveness is beyond me."

Have you ever considered that no one needs you to make these conclusions for them? Have you ever considered that perhaps you may not know as much as you think you do, and you may in fact be inhibiting people from seeking cheap, safe and effective medical treatment? Do you ever think to yourself "Hey I spend an inordinate amount of time posting in marketplace threads acting like bored a 2bit ineffectual mall security guard."?

begging the question: that is the very thing we are disputing.

A few reasons why people might turn to using colloidal silver, without RCTs completed to your personal satisfaction:

1. Allergies - A lot of people are allergic to many types of antibiotics and have a very limited selection of antibiotics.

2. Antibiotic resistant bacteria - These kind of super bugs are increasingly common, and often 2nd or 3rd line antibiotics are being used ineffectively. Colloidal silver operates on a different principal of action that is very difficult for bacteria to mutate a resistance to.

3. It is safe - Regardless of your personal standards millions of people use colloidal silver regularly. If you disagree please provide me a single case of injury caused by colloidal silver which was properly prepared and used in moderation. (tip: blueman doesn't count. He admitted to drinking gallons a month in addition to using impure tap water and STERLING silver (includes toxic impurities like silver salts). Also this isn't an injury it is a cosmetic condition)

4. Viruses - Colloidal silver has been shown to be actively antiviral. There are a mere handful of antiviral drugs, and their efficacy and safety is questionable in many cases.

5. TONS of drugs that went thru endless RCTs were later shown to be unsafe, defective, or even lethal. How is that a pinnacle of scientific standards? The medical industry is increasingly showing itself to be more concerned with profits than healthcare and people are losing faith in this system and are forced to make these choices for themselves. Also I might add these RCT's that are used to approve drugs are funded by the company producing it. Conflict of interest much? Additionally who would fund the RCT for colloidal silver if it can't be owned under patent?

6. Not everyone can afford to spend hundreds of dollars to see a doctor so they can tell them what they already know every time they get a sore throat or a cold. Not everyone is insured. Not everyone can manage a day off of work or the STACK of costs associated with our medical system. The medical industry doesn't always have your best interests in mind, often all they have in mind is the bottom line.

7. Not everyone requires mommy and daddy to bureaucratically approve things that via ones own ability to learn and use critical thought can be discovered to be beneficial. Just because you haven't matured beyond the point that you require the state to make all of your choices for you does not mean the rest of us have to live under those  same conditions. Humanity has made scientific discoveries before RCTs existed, and they will continue to do so with or without them. Additionally there are REAMS of studies on colloidal silver if you ever bother to read them. You attack these people because you yourself are not free, and real freedom threatens you because you are afraid of the responsibilities that come with it. Therefore you have to reassure your ego that your belief system is correct by going on the offensive on a subject which CLEARLY has no direct effect on you as some one who is not interested in purchasing this product.

1. there are plenty of other antibiotics to use. bonus: they actually have rigorous evidence demonstrating their effectiveness.
2. that is not a valid concern when it comes to human use of antibiotics. antibiotic resistance is formed when there are left over bacteria from a antibiotic regiment. this usually occurs when the patient does not finish all their antibiotics, or the antibiotics are used in low dosages in a preventative manner (usually in farms).
3. homeopathy is probably safer than colloidal silver, so are you ok with that too? the problem isn't with colloidal silver's safety. the problem is people wasting time and money on treatments that have not been shown to do anything.
4. antiviral =/= cure/prevent/diagnose any known illness
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
6. ad hominem: "you can't trust conventional medicine because they have profits in mind!"
7. how exactly am I acting bureaucratically? I never once asked for FDA or any regulatory approval.

That is just a handful of reasons why some one might use colloidal silver regardless of lack of industry backing. There are a lot more but I don't have the time.

As far as your "null hypothesis" argument, you know how science works right? There are many different schools of thoughts, methods, specialties, and processes which can some times disagree with one another in theory until conclusive empirical data is produced. This means opposing theories exist until one, all, or none of them are proved to be correct.
[...]
It is basically a fancy way of saying an ASSUMPTION "model". You can't just pick any theory out of a hat and conclude it is standard industry practice applicable whenever convenient for your argument. That is not how science works, you don't just get to pick apart a tiny unrelated facet and ignore the whole. Frankly I think you have a serious lack of a scientific education. Empirical processes is pretty much day 1 stuff.

So your logic is: there isn't evidence proving that colloidal silver isn't effective, therefore it's wrong for me to question the effectiveness of colloidal silver in preventing/curing/diagnosing any known disease.