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.
