Topic: 750ml Colloidal Silver - $29 - page 3. (Read 26625 times)
price negotiable?
750ml bottle, 10 parts per million.
Process
Sacred Silver is made only after midnight, when solar interference is at a minimum.
Sacred Silver is made underground in a dark, empty room with no other sources of electrical fields.
Sacred Silver is made in the presence of an amethyst and silver based orgonite positive energy generator.
Sacred Silver contains only distilled water and silver. No salt, protein, or other additives are ever used.
Process
Sacred Silver is made only after midnight, when solar interference is at a minimum.
Sacred Silver is made underground in a dark, empty room with no other sources of electrical fields.
Sacred Silver is made in the presence of an amethyst and silver based orgonite positive energy generator.
Sacred Silver contains only distilled water and silver. No salt, protein, or other additives are ever used.
For the first part, at least have the products you claim to be beneficial in your product, Why pay you .25 BTC for probably less then a cent of pure silver at market price.
If it's because of your process, Pretty sure that the silver is gonna come into contact with electric and magnetic fields before you put it in water. and even then everything you've posted doesn't mention this abstract process.
Silver DOES have medical applications, I've gotten cisplatin which contains the heavy metal platinum, but don't pick and choose what benefits it has against when other research says it's a placebo, especially at 10 ppm considering thats basically homeopathy of silver.
More power to you if you wanna take silver compounds, I can't stop you, but at least get it from someone who sells it at not insane prices, your literally making 98% profit
So, have you sold any yet?
My logic is "if it works, don't fix it." IDC about the theoretical hobgoblins (bias, variables, and placebos, OH MY!) you're so worried about enough to let them reduce my quality of life.
If you were capable of rational mentation by form and could understand Rand's Objectivist epistemology, it would be obvious that the evidence of the senses does not require external validation from some collectivist consensus reality predicated on shaky RCTs with their own litany of intrinsic defects (bias, variables, and placebos, OH MY!).
I don't need to know everything about the chemistry of partially acetylated mannan polysaccharides and biological activities of veracylglucan C to simply use aloe effectively. Just like Hippocrates didn't need to understand the oligodynamic effect when he discussed the use of silver in wound care.
I already read the wiki page on evidence, but will nevertheless continue to maximize my own utility without regard for data describing more general circumstances. It was mostly a review (I received passing grades in both Philosophy of Science and Theory of Knowledge).
Such data are suspect for many reasons, as illustrated by the problems with obtaining a standardized aloe extract:
^^This is why it is unreasonable for you to demand I (Capital P) Prove in some absurdly specific manner (RCTs) that the particular aloe plant growing in my particular grandmother's particular garden really did ameliorate the sunburn on my particular skin when applied freshly squeezed from a particular living leaf.
Thank you for your relentless interest in Sacred Silver, the only colloidal silver produced exclusively for the Bitcoin community.
Your opinion, no matter how ill-informed and calcified, is important to us because we appreciate any opportunity to address the easily dispelled canards commonly regurgitated when on the strangely polarizing subject of tiny amounts of nanometer scale silver particles floating in distilled water.
If you were capable of rational mentation by form and could understand Rand's Objectivist epistemology, it would be obvious that the evidence of the senses does not require external validation from some collectivist consensus reality predicated on shaky RCTs with their own litany of intrinsic defects (bias, variables, and placebos, OH MY!).
I don't need to know everything about the chemistry of partially acetylated mannan polysaccharides and biological activities of veracylglucan C to simply use aloe effectively. Just like Hippocrates didn't need to understand the oligodynamic effect when he discussed the use of silver in wound care.
I already read the wiki page on evidence, but will nevertheless continue to maximize my own utility without regard for data describing more general circumstances. It was mostly a review (I received passing grades in both Philosophy of Science and Theory of Knowledge).
Such data are suspect for many reasons, as illustrated by the problems with obtaining a standardized aloe extract:
Quote
It has been claimed that the polysaccharides in A. vera gel have therapeutic properties such as
immunostimulation, anti-inflammatory effects, wound healing, promotion of radiation damage repair,
anti-bacterial, anti-viral, anti-fungal, anti-diabetic and anti-neoplastic activities, stimulation of
hematopoiesis and anti-oxidant effects [4,7,38].
On the other hand, there are a number of clinical reports that have found A. vera gel not effective in
terms of the above mentioned therapeutic activities or even to cause undesirable effects such as
retardation of wound healing. As mentioned before, these conflicting results could be due to the use of
plants from different locations with variations in their chemical composition and also because of
different isolation techniques that were used to extract compounds from the aloe leaf pulp.
The importance of why the specific compounds that were isolated from a plant and then tested in a
particular bioassay should be known can be demonstrated by the potential antagonistic and competitive
activities between constituents. When the two maloylglucans, namely veracylglucan B and C, were
each individually evaluated for biological activities it was found that veracylglucan B demonstrated
high anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferation effects, while veracylglucan C exhibited significant cell
proliferative and anti-inflammatory activities. Therefore, if A. vera gel is tested in a wound healing
experiment and it contains high amounts of veracylglucan B and is perhaps also contaminated with
anthraquinones from the exudate, it will most probably result in retardation of wound healing. If the
gel is obtained from a plant with higher concentrations of veracylglucan C, it would probably end in
positive wound healing results [23].
Furthermore, the polysaccharides found in aloe gel are not stable, especially under stress conditions
such as heat, the presence of acid and enzymatic activities. It has been suggested that a standardised
method is necessary for production of aloe gel products to avoid degradation of the polysaccharides
and thereby preventing the removal of high molecular weight molecules. This standardised and
consistent production process is vital for preserving the natural biological activity of the aloe gel [39].
http://www.mdpi.org/molecules/papers/13081599.pdf
immunostimulation, anti-inflammatory effects, wound healing, promotion of radiation damage repair,
anti-bacterial, anti-viral, anti-fungal, anti-diabetic and anti-neoplastic activities, stimulation of
hematopoiesis and anti-oxidant effects [4,7,38].
On the other hand, there are a number of clinical reports that have found A. vera gel not effective in
terms of the above mentioned therapeutic activities or even to cause undesirable effects such as
retardation of wound healing. As mentioned before, these conflicting results could be due to the use of
plants from different locations with variations in their chemical composition and also because of
different isolation techniques that were used to extract compounds from the aloe leaf pulp.
The importance of why the specific compounds that were isolated from a plant and then tested in a
particular bioassay should be known can be demonstrated by the potential antagonistic and competitive
activities between constituents. When the two maloylglucans, namely veracylglucan B and C, were
each individually evaluated for biological activities it was found that veracylglucan B demonstrated
high anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferation effects, while veracylglucan C exhibited significant cell
proliferative and anti-inflammatory activities. Therefore, if A. vera gel is tested in a wound healing
experiment and it contains high amounts of veracylglucan B and is perhaps also contaminated with
anthraquinones from the exudate, it will most probably result in retardation of wound healing. If the
gel is obtained from a plant with higher concentrations of veracylglucan C, it would probably end in
positive wound healing results [23].
Furthermore, the polysaccharides found in aloe gel are not stable, especially under stress conditions
such as heat, the presence of acid and enzymatic activities. It has been suggested that a standardised
method is necessary for production of aloe gel products to avoid degradation of the polysaccharides
and thereby preventing the removal of high molecular weight molecules. This standardised and
consistent production process is vital for preserving the natural biological activity of the aloe gel [39].
http://www.mdpi.org/molecules/papers/13081599.pdf
^^This is why it is unreasonable for you to demand I (Capital P) Prove in some absurdly specific manner (RCTs) that the particular aloe plant growing in my particular grandmother's particular garden really did ameliorate the sunburn on my particular skin when applied freshly squeezed from a particular living leaf.
Thank you for your relentless interest in Sacred Silver, the only colloidal silver produced exclusively for the Bitcoin community.
Your opinion, no matter how ill-informed and calcified, is important to us because we appreciate any opportunity to address the easily dispelled canards commonly regurgitated when on the strangely polarizing subject of tiny amounts of nanometer scale silver particles floating in distilled water.
if it can keep milk fresh imagine what it does to your blood! It purifies!
Sounds like a good fun experiment but it's not necessary because others have already done it, and silver coins have been used to keep water/milk fresh since forever.
Hey iCEBREAKER,
You should make a video of yourself doing the milk test with your colloidal silver that would be really interesting.
You take 2 glasses of milk, put a tablespoon of colloidal silver in one, and nothing in the other, and leave them out of the fridge.
one goes bad quick and the other doesn't. guess which one doesn't
search "colloidal silver milk test" on youtube!
You should make a video of yourself doing the milk test with your colloidal silver that would be really interesting.
You take 2 glasses of milk, put a tablespoon of colloidal silver in one, and nothing in the other, and leave them out of the fridge.
one goes bad quick and the other doesn't. guess which one doesn't
search "colloidal silver milk test" on youtube!
Sounds like a good fun experiment but it's not necessary because others have already done it, and silver coins have been used to keep water/milk fresh since forever.
Great example of my point, thanks. I know, from experience and observation, that aloe makes my sunburn better. I didn't need the validation from statistical evidence provided by RCTs. Some less independent herd-minded people do, because they live in a world filled with fear, uncertainty, and doubt (but that's their problem).
so your logic is: I got sunburn, put on aloe, and now sunburn is better. therefore, aloe heals my sunburn faster. if you had any critical thinking skills, you will see there are tons of biases and variables that you're not accounting for. for all i know, it could be placebo, or your skin healing naturally.RCTs are great for establishing aloe's method(s?)/agent(s?) of action, but it would be silly to suffer needlessly waiting decades for their results when relief can be provided immediately.
the problem is that studies has not shown that aloe vera aids in skin healing. if aloe vera really did help to heal skin, the results should be reproducible.Evidence of the senses is a form of empirical evidence. A first-hand account is a form of primary evidence. RCTs are secondary sources.
there's nothing wrong with empirical evidence you collected yourself. however, unless the evidence was collected from many sources and in a controlled environment, the result will be subject to bias. i, along with a overwhelming majority of the scientific community prefer RCTs because they were done in a controlled environment, with a large sample group, and conducted in a way to minimize biases.Anecdotes are stories you hear from others. If you're unfamiliar with Objectivist epistemology you should read Kelly's above quoted book.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Scientific_context 
It seems like a larger majority of people on the bitcoin forum are conspiracy theorists than the average group. Feel free to sell your wares, I have no reason to stop you, everyone on here has probably made up their minds on how logical this all is and sometimes the things the majority believe in IS untrue and these small miracles make a difference, but in my mind this is another worthless cure-all and I don't want people to get their hopes up.
Why bother educating yourself about a subject when you can form an opinion on it while knowing absolutely nothing about it! Life is much easier that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
bonus:
https://i.minus.com/iVyoG5NjLNBzb.png
Would you so kindly explain what "evidence of the senses" is? Is it just anecdotal evidence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
bonus:
https://i.minus.com/iVyoG5NjLNBzb.png
Would you so kindly explain what "evidence of the senses" is? Is it just anecdotal evidence?
Great example of my point, thanks. I know, from experience and observation, that aloe makes my sunburn better. I didn't need the validation from statistical evidence provided by RCTs. Some less independent herd-minded people do, because they live in a world filled with fear, uncertainty, and doubt (but that's their problem).
Quote
Although claimed to be effective, Aloe vera has not been proven to offer protection for humans from sunburn, suntan, or other damage from the sun. In studies on mice, aloe vera polysaccharides preserved the number and morphology of immunosuppressive and dendritic cells in skin damaged by ultraviolet exposure.
RCTs are great for establishing aloe's method(s?)/agent(s?) of action, but it would be silly to suffer needlessly waiting decades for their results when relief can be provided immediately.
My main concern is with my own utility, not establishing some kind of Grand Truth about samples of large numbers of people or mice.
Evidence of the senses is a form of empirical evidence. A first-hand account is a form of primary evidence. RCTs are secondary sources.
Anecdotes are stories you hear from others. If you're unfamiliar with Objectivist epistemology you should read Kelly's above quoted book.
Quote
grue: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" (argumentum ad auctoritatem, epistemological Methodism, Fundamentalist Denialism)
iCEBREAKER: "You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows." (Endoxa, Sensus communis, Epistemological particularism)Quote
Objectivist epistemology begins with the principle that "consciousness is identification". This is understood to be a direct consequence of the metaphysical principle that "existence is identity."[17] Rand defined "reason" as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."[18] Says Rand, "The fundamental concept of method, the one on which all the others depend, is logic. The distinguishing characteristic of logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) indicates the nature of the actions (actions of consciousness required to achieve a correct identification) and their goal (knowledge)—while omitting the length, complexity or specific steps of the process of logical inference, as well as the nature of the particular cognitive problem involved in any given instance of using logic."[19]
According to Rand, consciousness possesses a specific and finite identity, just like everything else that exists; therefore, it must operate by a specific method of validation. An item of knowledge cannot be "disqualified" by being arrived at by a specific process in a particular form. Thus, for Rand, the fact that consciousness must itself possess identity implies the rejection of both universal skepticism based on the "limits" of consciousness, as well as any claim to revelation, emotion or faith based belief.
Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. "Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident."[20] Rand considered the validity of the senses to be axiomatic, and claimed that purported arguments to the contrary all commit the fallacy of the "stolen concept"[21] by presupposing the validity of concepts that, in turn, presuppose the validity of the senses.[22] She held that perception, being physiologically determined, is incapable of error. For example, Optical illusions are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not errors in sight itself.[23] The validity of sense perception, therefore, is not susceptible to proof (because it is presupposed by all proof as proof is only a matter of adducing sensory evidence) nor should its validity be denied (since the conceptual tools one would have to use to do this are derived from sensory data). Perceptual error, therefore, is not possible. Rand consequently rejected epistemological skepticism, as she holds that the skeptics' claim to knowledge "undistorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Epistemology:_reason
According to Rand, consciousness possesses a specific and finite identity, just like everything else that exists; therefore, it must operate by a specific method of validation. An item of knowledge cannot be "disqualified" by being arrived at by a specific process in a particular form. Thus, for Rand, the fact that consciousness must itself possess identity implies the rejection of both universal skepticism based on the "limits" of consciousness, as well as any claim to revelation, emotion or faith based belief.
Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. "Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident."[20] Rand considered the validity of the senses to be axiomatic, and claimed that purported arguments to the contrary all commit the fallacy of the "stolen concept"[21] by presupposing the validity of concepts that, in turn, presuppose the validity of the senses.[22] She held that perception, being physiologically determined, is incapable of error. For example, Optical illusions are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not errors in sight itself.[23] The validity of sense perception, therefore, is not susceptible to proof (because it is presupposed by all proof as proof is only a matter of adducing sensory evidence) nor should its validity be denied (since the conceptual tools one would have to use to do this are derived from sensory data). Perceptual error, therefore, is not possible. Rand consequently rejected epistemological skepticism, as she holds that the skeptics' claim to knowledge "undistorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Epistemology:_reason
It seems like a larger majority of people on the bitcoin forum are conspiracy theorists than the average group. Feel free to sell your wares, I have no reason to stop you, everyone on here has probably made up their minds on how logical this all is and sometimes the things the majority believe in IS untrue and these small miracles make a difference, but in my mind this is another worthless cure-all and I don't want people to get their hopes up.
If I get a burn (especially sunburn 
) I don't need RCTs to tell me that applying aloe vera is a good idea. I learned that from my grandma, and it's common sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) I don't need RCTs to tell me that applying aloe vera is a good idea. I learned that from my grandma, and it's common sense.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
bonus:
https://i.minus.com/iVyoG5NjLNBzb.png
Again, trusting the FDA's medical advice (RCTs be damned) is like trusting the SEC for investment advice ("Madoff? Sure, he's a great guy. A real mench!").
Or like trusting public schools to educate your children.
Or like trusting the Fed with the power to print money.
Or like trusting the FEC to ensure free and fair elections.
how is this relevant to colloidal silver? your argument is based on mistrust of goverment agencies (opposite of appeal to authority). but even that fails, because I wanted RCTs, regardless of source.Or like trusting public schools to educate your children.
Or like trusting the Fed with the power to print money.
Or like trusting the FEC to ensure free and fair elections.
According to the wiki, RCTs have plenty of their own problems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial#Disadvantages
[...]
So you don't like randomized controlled trials. What experiments/proof can you provide that shows ingestion of colloidal silver can cure, prevent or diagnose a disease? The evidence you presented so far either do do not lead to the aforementioned conclusion, or is purely speculative.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial#Disadvantages
[...]
You may, but I do not live in a socially-constructed reality. My epistemology is based on rational individualism, which does not discount (and indeed exalts) the evidence of the senses:
Would you so kindly explain what "evidence of the senses" is? Is it just anecdotal evidence?
According to the wiki, RCTs have plenty of their own problems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial#Disadvantages
9.1 Limitations of external validity
9.2 Costs
9.3 Time
9.4 Relative importance of RCTs and observational studies
9.5 Difficulty in studying rare events
9.6 Difficulty in studying outcomes in distant future
9.7 Pro-industry findings in industry-funded RCTs
9.8 Therapeutic misconception
9.9 Narrowing of the studied question
9.10 Statistical error
9.11 Cultural effects
9.12 Conflict of interest dangers
Luckily it's a free country so there's no problem with you abstaining from colloidal silver while decrying the choice of millions of consumers to use it when and as they see fit, while happily ignoring your pedantic objections/concern trolling and improve our quality of life with a product well-known to be safe and with a long history of practical value.
Thanks again for your interest in Sacred Silver, the only colloidal silver product produced exclusively for the Bitcoin community. Your opinion is important to us, because we appreciate any opportunity to address the misconceptions about, and baseless hostility towards, distilled water containing 10 parts per million of extremely tiny nanoscale silver particles (and ions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial#Disadvantages
9.1 Limitations of external validity
9.2 Costs
9.3 Time
9.4 Relative importance of RCTs and observational studies
9.5 Difficulty in studying rare events
9.6 Difficulty in studying outcomes in distant future
9.7 Pro-industry findings in industry-funded RCTs
9.8 Therapeutic misconception
9.9 Narrowing of the studied question
9.10 Statistical error
9.11 Cultural effects
9.12 Conflict of interest dangers
Luckily it's a free country so there's no problem with you abstaining from colloidal silver while decrying the choice of millions of consumers to use it when and as they see fit, while happily ignoring your pedantic objections/concern trolling and improve our quality of life with a product well-known to be safe and with a long history of practical value.
Thanks again for your interest in Sacred Silver, the only colloidal silver product produced exclusively for the Bitcoin community. Your opinion is important to us, because we appreciate any opportunity to address the misconceptions about, and baseless hostility towards, distilled water containing 10 parts per million of extremely tiny nanoscale silver particles (and ions).
iCEBREAKER, always nice to have you back.
Tell me how RCTs are considered as narrow. RCTs are the standard in modern, evidence based medicine. You should also know that "Evidence of the Senses" is basically anecdotal evidence, and therefore not reliable.
Also, whether or not RCT results can be reproduced outside of RCTs does not have anything to do with the reliability of non-RCT results.
>implying all RCTs are funded by drug manufacturers
>implying all RCTs are done solely for the purpose of getting regulatory approval for a drug
>implying universities don't do RCTs for the purpose of advancing human knowledge
case in point: acetylsalicylic acid, an out-of-patent drug has recently shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
Tell me how RCTs are considered as narrow. RCTs are the standard in modern, evidence based medicine. You should also know that "Evidence of the Senses" is basically anecdotal evidence, and therefore not reliable.
Also, whether or not RCT results can be reproduced outside of RCTs does not have anything to do with the reliability of non-RCT results.
>implying all RCTs are funded by drug manufacturers
>implying all RCTs are done solely for the purpose of getting regulatory approval for a drug
>implying universities don't do RCTs for the purpose of advancing human knowledge
case in point: acetylsalicylic acid, an out-of-patent drug has recently shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
Thanks grue, we do have lots of fun around here don't we?
I didn't imply anything about "all RCTs." My HS English teacher taught me to avoid 'always and never' statements.
Your academic research edge cases are the exception not the rule, and do not dispute my reasoning regarding the results of lack of profit motive meeting exorbitant expense.
Also, many research institutions are highly dependent of corporate benefactors. These 'commonize cost, privatize profits' games are euphemistically called 'public-private partnerships.' (I call them fascism, but that's another topic.)
As you know, there are different types of evidence, with varying qualifying requirements and standards. IE: Statistical, testimonial, anecdotal, and analogical evidence.
Your myopic fixation on only one kind (statistical) and unwillingness to accept the others is motivated solely by your malicious negative prejudice towards colloidal silver.
If I get a burn (especially sunburn
) I don't need RCTs to tell me that applying aloe vera is a good idea. I learned that from my grandma, and it's common sense.RTCs may help ascertain the efficacy and agents of aloe's action over a large groups of people, but there's no reason for any individual to suffer while waiting for them to be designed/approved/funded/executed/analyzed/reviewed/published/etc.
You may, but I do not live in a socially-constructed reality. My epistemology is based on rational individualism, which does not discount (and indeed exalts) the evidence of the senses:
Quote
In this highly original defense of realism, Atlas Society founder David Kelley argues that perception is the discrimination of objects as entities, that the awareness of these objects is direct, and that perception is a reliable foundation for empirical knowledge. His argument relies on the basic principle of the "primacy of existence," in opposition to Cartesian representationalism and Kantian idealism.
In the first part of the book, Kelley discusses the nature and validity of perception. He argues against classical sensationalist and modern computational theories, according to which perception involves inferences from sensory input. Unlike most realists, he also offers an in-depth consideration of the problems of perceptual relativity. His theory incorporates a key distinction between the object and the form in which it is perceived. This distinction provides insights into the status of phenomenal qualities, the nature of perceptual constancy, and the difference between primary and secondary qualities.
In the second part of the book, Kelley is concerned with the way we distinguish conceptual knowledge from perception. His theory of non-propositional justification shows how perceptual judgments are supported by the direct awareness of objects, and it allows a novel defense of empiricism.
http://www.atlassociety.org/david-kelley-evidence-senses
In the first part of the book, Kelley discusses the nature and validity of perception. He argues against classical sensationalist and modern computational theories, according to which perception involves inferences from sensory input. Unlike most realists, he also offers an in-depth consideration of the problems of perceptual relativity. His theory incorporates a key distinction between the object and the form in which it is perceived. This distinction provides insights into the status of phenomenal qualities, the nature of perceptual constancy, and the difference between primary and secondary qualities.
In the second part of the book, Kelley is concerned with the way we distinguish conceptual knowledge from perception. His theory of non-propositional justification shows how perceptual judgments are supported by the direct awareness of objects, and it allows a novel defense of empiricism.
http://www.atlassociety.org/david-kelley-evidence-senses
Again, trusting the FDA's medical advice (RCTs be damned) is like trusting the SEC for investment advice ("Madoff? Sure, he's a great guy. A real mench!").
Or like trusting public schools to educate your children.
Or like trusting the Fed with the power to print money.
Or like trusting the FEC to ensure free and fair elections.
Or like trusting the Post Office to deliver mail. Oh, wait. That one is actually in the Constitution so NVM.
iCEBREAKER, always nice to have you back.
There you go again, moving the goal posts to the horizon by purposefully defining "evidence" in as artificially narrow a way as possible. Ever heard of the phrase "Evidence of the Senses?" No? It's going to come as a shock to you, but there are plenty of kinds of evidence produced outside of RCTs.
Tell me how RCTs are considered as narrow. RCTs are the standard in modern, evidence based medicine. You should also know that "Evidence of the Senses" is basically anecdotal evidence, and therefore not reliable.
Also, whether or not RCT results can be reproduced outside of RCTs does not have anything to do with the reliability of non-RCT results.
uh... ok?
How is that a red herring? You were arguing that colloidal silver was effective because of its use throughout history.
Again with the "conspiracy" trigger words. Why is it so hard for you to understand that a product must be patentable and potentially very profitable in order for a company to justify the massive trouble and exorbitant expense of RTCs? And FYI, cold temps are conducive to viral propagation for several different reasons. Now go back to debunking something less complicated and more in line with your limited capabilites, like chemtrails, homeopathy, or astrology.>implying all RCTs are funded by drug manufacturers
>implying all RCTs are done solely for the purpose of getting regulatory approval for a drug
>implying universities don't do RCTs for the purpose of advancing human knowledge
case in point: acetylsalicylic acid, an out-of-patent drug has recently shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
It's not FUD. There is just no evidence presented in this thread. If you think I missed a piece of evidence, please redirect me to which source I missed. Please note that evidence refers to empirical evidence (from RCTs), not how many physicians wrote about it, or how long the practice has been around.
There you go again, moving the goal posts to the horizon by purposefully defining "evidence" in as artificially narrow a way as possible. Ever heard of the phrase "Evidence of the Senses?" No? It's going to come as a shock to you, but there are plenty of kinds of evidence produced outside of RCTs.
Also, whether or not RCT results can be reproduced outside of RCTs does not have anything to do with the reliability of non-RCT results.
I have never denied the oligodynamic effect. This has been said many times, even you acknowledge this in your posts.
Of course you never denied the oligodynamic effect. That would be stupid. But so is being unable to discuss colloidal silver without ranting about '9/11 nutjobs.' history of use does NOT constitute evidence unless there were properly controlled trials proving its effectiveness.
Again, you should be able to make that point without resorting to red herrings intended to instigate flame wars. But thanks anyway for sharing the ugliness of your thought process and depth of your strangely emotional antipathy towards colloidal silver. oh isn't that convenient? a product that has been around for thousands of years has never had its validity verified by modern science? Must be some big phrama conspiracy there. Again, just because it's "common sense" doesn't mean it's automatically true. Remember when it was "common sense" that low temperatures caused the cold?
Again with the "conspiracy" trigger words. Why is it so hard for you to understand that a product must be patentable and potentially very profitable in order for a company to justify the massive trouble and exorbitant expense of RTCs? And FYI, cold temps are conducive to viral propagation for several different reasons. Now go back to debunking something less complicated and more in line with your limited capabilites, like chemtrails, homeopathy, or astrology.
>implying all RCTs are done solely for the purpose of getting regulatory approval for a drug
>implying universities don't do RCTs for the purpose of advancing human knowledge
case in point: acetylsalicylic acid, an out-of-patent drug has recently shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
I remember reading somewhere your body never processes the silver out and continued use turns your skin blue. This stuff even legal to sell?
Oprah had a retarded man who abused CS and turned his skin blue on her show in an attempt to discredit colloidal silver.
Colloidal silver is more bullshit snake oil. Everyone knows it.
Do you speak from experience? If not then please keep your "knowledge" to yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria
You have learned how to use Wikipedia, why actually learn about a subject when you can have random people on the internet tell you what to believe!
P.S. The subject of Argyria has been discussed here already in depth, not that you would ever bother reading something before forming an opinion.
I remember reading somewhere your body never processes the silver out and continued use turns your skin blue. This stuff even legal to sell?
Oprah had a retarded man who abused CS and turned his skin blue on her show in an attempt to discredit colloidal silver.
Colloidal silver is more bullshit snake oil. Everyone knows it.
Do you speak from experience? If not then please keep your "knowledge" to yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria
You are aware that many modern doctors incorporate elements of non-western medicine, but you don't care because that fact is inconvenient to the scary FUD associated with holistic medicine with which you are trying to smear colloidal silver. YLFI: guilt by association, congratulations!
It's not FUD. There is just no evidence presented in this thread. If you think I missed a piece of evidence, please redirect me to which source I missed. Please note that evidence refers to empirical evidence (from RCTs), not how many physicians wrote about it, or how long the practice has been around.There you go again, moving the goal posts to the horizon by purposefully defining "evidence" in as artificially narrow a way as possible. Ever heard of the phrase "Evidence of the Senses?" No? It's going to come as a shock to you, but there are plenty of kinds of evidence produced outside of RCTs.
You are also aware that the oligodynamic effect is neither controversial nor a conspiracy theory many people find highly offensive, yet you still throw out a red herring about '9/11 nutjobs.'
Of course you never denied the oligodynamic effect. That would be stupid. But so is being unable to discuss colloidal silver without ranting about '9/11 nutjobs.' I have never denied the oligodynamic effect. This has been said many times, even you acknowledge this in your posts.
How distasteful of you to stand on the graves of the dead in order to defame a well known health product with a very long history of extensive use.
Couldn't you think of a less inflammatory way to make your (rather silly) point? Oh that's right, you are here for no reason other than to start flame wars. Well cupcake, have fun getting trollstomped.
Again, you should be able to make that point without resorting to red herrings intended to instigate flame wars. But thanks anyway for sharing the ugliness of your thought process and depth of your strangely emotional antipathy towards colloidal silver. Couldn't you think of a less inflammatory way to make your (rather silly) point? Oh that's right, you are here for no reason other than to start flame wars. Well cupcake, have fun getting trollstomped.
history of use does NOT constitute evidence unless there were properly controlled trials proving its effectiveness.
How is it an "appeal to emotion" to point out that both colloidal silver and cannabis both have long (1000+ year) histories of safe, effective prior use but are not studied extensively at present due to lack of patent potential?
oh isn't that convenient? a product that has been around for thousands of years has never had its validity verified by modern science? Must be some big phrama conspiracy there. Again, just because it's "common sense" doesn't mean it's automatically true. Remember when it was "common sense" that low temperatures caused the cold?
Again with the "conspiracy" trigger words. Why is it so hard for you to understand that a product must be patentable and potentially very profitable in order for a company to justify the massive trouble and exorbitant expense of RTCs? And FYI, cold temps are conducive to viral propagation for several different reasons. Now go back to debunking something less complicated and more in line with your limited capabilites, like chemtrails, homeopathy, or astrology.
Notice how Grue has nothing to say to me and the studies I provided. He also hasn't been able to provide evidence of ANYONE who used pure colloidal silver (pure distilled water, and .999+ silver ionized into it) in moderation and was damaged physically by it. You can't even provide just one example? How many examples can be provided of amoxicillin hurting and even killing people? Quite a few. I am not saying one can replace the other completely - but if you are going to talk about safety well it has a pretty impeccable record compared to pretty much any pharmaceutical you could pick out of a hat.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I questioned colloidal's effectiveness in curing disease when ingested, not whether it's safe.You are aware that many modern doctors incorporate elements of non-western medicine, but you don't care because that fact is inconvenient to the scary FUD associated with holistic medicine with which you are trying to smear colloidal silver. YLFI: guilt by association, congratulations!
It's not FUD. There is just no evidence presented in this thread. If you think I missed a piece of evidence, please redirect me to which source I missed. Please note that evidence refers to empirical evidence (from RCTs), not how many physicians wrote about it, or how long the practice has been around.You are also aware that the oligodynamic effect is neither controversial nor a conspiracy theory many people find highly offensive, yet you still throw out a red herring about '9/11 nutjobs.'
I have never denied the oligodynamic effect. This has been said many times, even you acknowledge this in your posts.How distasteful of you to stand on the graves of the dead in order to defame a well known health product with a very long history of extensive use.
Couldn't you think of a less inflammatory way to make your (rather silly) point? Oh that's right, you are here for no reason other than to start flame wars. Well cupcake, have fun getting trollstomped.
history of use does NOT constitute evidence unless there were properly controlled trials proving its effectiveness.Couldn't you think of a less inflammatory way to make your (rather silly) point? Oh that's right, you are here for no reason other than to start flame wars. Well cupcake, have fun getting trollstomped.
How is it an "appeal to emotion" to point out that both colloidal silver and cannabis both have long (1000+ year) histories of safe, effective prior use but are not studied extensively at present due to lack of patent potential?
oh isn't that convenient? a product that has been around for thousands of years has never had its validity verified by modern science? Must be some big phrama conspiracy there. Again, just because it's "common sense" doesn't mean it's automatically true. Remember when it was "common sense" that low temperatures caused the cold?
Notice how Grue has nothing to say to me and the studies I provided. He also hasn't been able to provide evidence of ANYONE who used pure colloidal silver (pure distilled water, and .999+ silver ionized into it) in moderation and was damaged physically by it. You can't even provide just one example? How many examples can be provided of amoxicillin hurting and even killing people? Quite a few. I am not saying one can replace the other completely - but if you are going to talk about safety well it has a pretty impeccable record compared to pretty much any pharmaceutical you could pick out of a hat.
Dear Grue,
I'm not here to defend the entire edifice of whatever passes for holistic medicine, but nice try at retreating into generalities when your attack on the particular failed spectacularly.
You are aware that many modern doctors incorporate elements of non-western medicine, but you don't care because that fact is inconvenient to the scary FUD associated with holistic medicine with which you are trying to smear colloidal silver. YLFI: guilt by association, congratulations!
You are also aware that the oligodynamic effect is neither controversial nor a conspiracy theory many people find highly offensive, yet you still throw out a red herring about '9/11 nutjobs.'
How distasteful of you to stand on the graves of the dead in order to defame a well known health product with a very long history of extensive use.
Couldn't you think of a less inflammatory way to make your (rather silly) point? Oh that's right, you are here for no reason other than to start flame wars. Well cupcake, have fun getting trollstomped.
How is it an "appeal to emotion" to point out that both colloidal silver and cannabis both have long (1000+ year) histories of safe, effective prior use but are not studied extensively at present due to lack of patent potential?
I said you "sound like the anti-medical cannabis police state thugs, whining about how you 'merely demand years of fully insured, prohibitively regulated, ludicrously expensive, double-blind, peer-reviewed, fair trade shade grown studies' to prove what has been common knowledge for 5,000 years," not that you are literally a jackbooted thug. (Asshamster, yes. JBT, no.)
Thank you for your oddly persistent interest in Sacred Silver (the first colloidal silver product produced exclusively for the Bitcoin community) and your unabiding desire to participate in a conversation devoted to a product you have no intention of buying or even considering buying. Such devotion is endearing, if a little creepy.
I'm not here to defend the entire edifice of whatever passes for holistic medicine, but nice try at retreating into generalities when your attack on the particular failed spectacularly.
You are aware that many modern doctors incorporate elements of non-western medicine, but you don't care because that fact is inconvenient to the scary FUD associated with holistic medicine with which you are trying to smear colloidal silver. YLFI: guilt by association, congratulations!
You are also aware that the oligodynamic effect is neither controversial nor a conspiracy theory many people find highly offensive, yet you still throw out a red herring about '9/11 nutjobs.'
How distasteful of you to stand on the graves of the dead in order to defame a well known health product with a very long history of extensive use.
Couldn't you think of a less inflammatory way to make your (rather silly) point? Oh that's right, you are here for no reason other than to start flame wars. Well cupcake, have fun getting trollstomped.
How is it an "appeal to emotion" to point out that both colloidal silver and cannabis both have long (1000+ year) histories of safe, effective prior use but are not studied extensively at present due to lack of patent potential?
I said you "sound like the anti-medical cannabis police state thugs, whining about how you 'merely demand years of fully insured, prohibitively regulated, ludicrously expensive, double-blind, peer-reviewed, fair trade shade grown studies' to prove what has been common knowledge for 5,000 years," not that you are literally a jackbooted thug. (Asshamster, yes. JBT, no.)
Thank you for your oddly persistent interest in Sacred Silver (the first colloidal silver product produced exclusively for the Bitcoin community) and your unabiding desire to participate in a conversation devoted to a product you have no intention of buying or even considering buying. Such devotion is endearing, if a little creepy.
Grue, you have very poor reading comprehension skills.
If you have to twist the plain language of the text beyond recognition in order to make it, your point is probably BS.
EG, Dr. Strengler refers not only to his own practice, but "other holistic doctors" as well.
If you can provide some empirical evidence, that would be great.If you have to twist the plain language of the text beyond recognition in order to make it, your point is probably BS.
EG, Dr. Strengler refers not only to his own practice, but "other holistic doctors" as well.
just for the fun of it:
Conspiracynutjob1983 is a believer in 9/11 conspiracies. He refers not only to his own practice, but "other conspiracy theorists as well".
You sound *EXACTLY* like the anti-medical cannabis police state thugs, whining about how you 'merely demand years of fully insured, prohibitively regulated, ludicrously expensive, double-blind, peer-reviewed, fair trade shade grown studies' to prove what has been common knowledge for 5,000 years.
you accuse me of appealing to emotion, and now you're using ad homiem? nice. Jump to: