Colloidal Silver [Archive] - UK-Skeptics forum

charliedw

26th July 2008, 12:45 AM

JJM

26th July 2008, 02:10 AM

Hi All {snip}

CharlieYou are seriously misinformed.

All colloidal silver is harmful (if ingested) http://rosemaryjacobs.com/ and it has no place in human pharmacy.

You wrote "The silver has an ionic charge which rips electrons from the pathogen cell membrane, thus rupturing and killing it. Friendly bacteria tend to have thicker membranes which are electrically nuetral, so their membranes are not affected by this ionic action, hence pathogens are more readilly targeted by the silver than friendly bacteria."

That is thoroughgoing nonsense. After you have studied a few years at University, perhaps you can understand. As a retired chemistry professor and medicinal chemist, I advise you that Rosemary Jacobs is an internationally respected authority on the topic.

I don't know whether you are selling it (colloidal silver), or just ignorant. Don't give health-care advice unless you have a medical license.

Graham Lappin

26th July 2008, 08:53 AM

The anti bacterial properties of silver have been known since ancient Greek and Roman times when they found that fluids (like milk and wine) would not turn sour as quickly if stored in a silver urn. Many modern studies have backed this up, so it is undisputable scientific fact.

You are an idiot! Lead, cadmium and arsenic would have the same effect. The point is to kill the bacteria without killing the one infected. I would also point out that the Greeks and Romans were around long before germ theory and therefore are not authorities on modern medicine.

The silver has an ionic charge which rips electrons from the pathogen cell membrane, thus rupturing and killing it. Friendly bacteria tend to have thicker membranes which are electrically nuetral, so their membranes are not affected by this ionic action, hence pathogens are more readilly targeted by the silver than friendly bacteria.

This is total tosh. It is typical of those who try to steal scientific language to bolster dangerous and unethical pseudoscientific nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself and understand that you could be doing serious harm spouting this rubbish. It is utterly despicable.

Graham Lappin

26th July 2008, 04:34 PM

I don't know whether you are selling it (colloidal silver), or just ignorant. Don't give health-care advice unless you have a medical license.

I have tracked charliedw from this:

http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/07/07/my-personal-experience-with-the-advanced-colloidal-silver/

to this:

http://blog.advancedsilversolution.com/2008/07/04/dr-clarks-cancer-protocol-part-3/

to this:

http://www.AdvancedSilverSolution.com/

So the answer is yes. Charliedw is making money out of a dangerous CAM. And surprise, surprise - he can cure cancer.

An example of one of the worst types of charlatans.

SimonC

26th July 2008, 04:51 PM

I have tracked charliedw from this:

http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/07/07/my-personal-experience-with-the-advanced-colloidal-silver/

to this:

http://blog.advancedsilversolution.com/2008/07/04/dr-clarks-cancer-protocol-part-3/

to this:

http://www.AdvancedSilverSolution.com/

So the answer is yes. Charliedw is making money out of a dangerous CAM. And surprise, surprise - he can cure cancer.

An example of one of the worst types of charlatans.

Thank you for that research, Bunny.

Looking at the blog, it seems that he is also a HIV denier. (http://blog.advancedsilversolution.com/2008/06/23/the-truth-about-hiv-aids-part-1/)>:-)

bindeweede

26th July 2008, 04:54 PM

Did you notice the Disclaimer at the bottom?

Disclaimer http://www.advancedsilversolution.com/images/picture_of_silver_bottle_hz5g.jpg
The information on this website is not intended as medical advice or to imply that the New Colloidal Silver Solution (http://www.advancedsilversolution.com/Home_Page.php) can cure any medical conditions. Do not change any course of treatment you are taking based on the information supplied in this website without first consulting your medical care provider.

http://www.advancedsilversolution.com/Disclaimer.html

Graham Lappin

26th July 2008, 07:25 PM

Did you notice the Disclaimer at the bottom?

He is based in the USA and in 1999 the FDA made a ruling that no claim of efficacy could be made for colloidal silver - hence he has to have a disclaimer. The FDA still allow its sale however which is frankly bizarre.

Why not just put lead back in petrol - lead kills bacteria in the test tube!

I know we all have our pet hates on this forum but its the medical woo merchants that really get me.

http://oryctolagus.wordpress.com/

Pebble

26th July 2008, 08:28 PM

Hi All

I know I am entering this conversation late, but I think I can shed some light. Firstly, not all colloidal silvers are equal.

The anti bacterial properties of silver have been known since ancient Greek and Roman times when they found that fluids (like milk and wine) would not turn sour as quickly if stored in a silver urn. Many modern studies have backed this up, so it is undisputable scientific fact.

Friendly bacteria tend to have thicker membranes which are electrically nuetral, so their membranes are not affected by this ionic action, hence pathogens are more readilly targeted by the silver than friendly bacteria.

Charlie

It is certainly clear that ionised silver has antibacterial properties making it useful for dressings and line/prosthesis impregnation, and is relatively safe to ingest:

Curr Probl Dermatol. 2006;33:17-34.
Links

Silver in health care: antimicrobial effects and safety in use.
Lansdown AB.
Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK. a.lansdown@imperial.ac.uk
Silver has a long and intriguing history as an antibiotic in human health care. It has been developed for use in water purification, wound care, bone prostheses, reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, cardiac devices, catheters and surgical appliances. Advancing biotechnology has enabled incorporation of ionizable silver into fabrics for clinical use to reduce the risk of nosocomial infections and for personal hygiene. The antimicrobial action of silver or silver compounds is proportional to the bioactive silver ion (Ag(+)) released and its availability to interact with bacterial or fungal cell membranes. Silver metal and inorganic silver compounds ionize in the presence of water, body fluids or tissue exudates. The silver ion is biologically active and readily interacts with proteins, amino acid residues, free anions and receptors on mammalian and eukaryotic cell membranes. Bacterial (and probably fungal) sensitivity to silver is genetically determined and relates to the levels of intracellular silver uptake and its ability to interact and irreversibly denature key enzyme systems. Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route. Chronic ingestion or inhalation of silver preparations (especially colloidal silver) can lead to deposition of silver metal/silver sulphide particles in the skin (argyria), eye (argyrosis) and other organs. These are not life-threatening conditions but cosmetically undesirable. Silver is absorbed into the human body and enters the systemic circulation as a protein complex to be eliminated by the liver and kidneys. Silver metabolism is modulated by induction and binding to metallothioneins. This complex mitigates the cellular toxicity of silver and contributes to tissue repair. Silver allergy is a known contra-indication for using silver in medical devices or antibiotic textiles.

But what is being claimed is totally different:

First that it behaves differently with 'friendly' bacteria - evidence please, what concentrations are achieved in various body compartments after ingestion? What impact does it have on various organisms at each of these sites? etc.

Next problem; there is only one clinical trial I can find and this is for dressings:

Rev Enferm. 2005 Feb;28(2):13-8.
Links

[Hydro-colloidal dressings which release hydro-active silver]
[Article in Spanish]

Serra N, Torres OG, Romo MI, Llovera JM, Vigil-Escalera LJ, Soto MA, González-Parra S.
Angiogrup, Clínica Sagrada Familia, Barcelona.
The study presented is a multicentric, prospective, open and comparative study designed with the objective of evaluating the performance of an antibacterial hydrocolloid dressing with hydroactivated silver (Comfeel Plata), when used to activate the healing process in wounds with high bacterial load, clinical signs of infection or malodour. Additionally, once the wound bed was appropriately prepared, a comparison in terms of efficacy was made between, on the one hand, continued treatment with the antibacterial hydrocolloid dressing, and, on the other hand, continued treatment with other dressings specifically designed for the proliferative phase of healing. Included into this study were 43 patients with chronic ulcers who were divided into two parallel treatment groups: In one group, Comfeel Plata (Coloplast AIS) was used until complete wound healing or for a maximum of 10-12 weeks, and in the second group Comfeel Plata (Coloplast A/S) was used until a clean wound bed was obtained and until the wound showed signs of positive evolution, at which moment the treatment was continued until complete healing or for a maximum of 10-12 weeks with dressings without silver designed especially for the proliferative phase of healing [Alione, Comfeel or Biatain (Coloplast AIS)]. The results obtained from the various study parameters indicate that the use of Comfeel Plata in the treatment of infected or colonized wounds prepares the wound bed and facilitates more rapid healing, and that the use of Comfeel Plata effectively reduces pain and malodour. The results indicate that once a clean wound bed is obtained, the use of a dressing without silver specifically for the proliferative phase will facilitate healing.

In terms of anecdotal evidence I can find only 15 case reports and 71 cases of toxicity, including cardiomyopathy and nephrotic syndrome. So in so far as published evidence goes, while you can propose that particle size is of interest, this product is clearly not shown to be safe or effective for use as proposed.

Graham Lappin

26th July 2008, 08:57 PM

Pebble - some good stuff there. Silver does have anti-microbial properties and it has been used medically mostly for topical application. There has also been some work that I am only distantly familiar with on trying to target silver ions at certain systemic infections. This does mean however, that drinking colloidal silver has any effect - this is a completely different thing (and I think this is what you were saying). This is so often the case with these woo remedies. Some efficacy under one set of conditions is extrapolated beyond all realms of the evidence into something totally unverified. This makes these types of alternative remedies all the more perniciously dangerous, particularly in these days of the internet. It becomes very difficult for the untrained to get accurate information - the half truths of the woo merchants can gain credibility from half-understood science.

At the end of the day, colloidal silver can be sold by any woo monger whilst effective antibiotics have to be prescribed by a physician under a regulatory framework. The latter is absolutely correct and so why does the former operate under such a totally different set of rules?

JJM

26th July 2008, 10:16 PM

Bunny- if I wore a hat, I would tip it to you.

Pebble

26th July 2008, 11:08 PM

This does [not] mean however, that drinking colloidal silver has any [beneficial] effect - this is a completely different thing (and I think this is what you were saying). {snip}
This is so often the case with these woo remedies. Some efficacy under one set of conditions is extrapolated beyond all realms of the evidence into something totally unverified.

Yes that is what I was trying to say, thanks

Mongrel

26th July 2008, 11:16 PM

Did you notice the Disclaimer at the bottom?

http://www.advancedsilversolution.com/Disclaimer.html

Quack Miranda Warning (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/03/quack_miranda_warning.php)

charliedw

27th July 2008, 12:22 AM

Well thank you for the welcome folks, this is a really pleasant forum.

Yes I do promote colloidal silver, but only one specific brand. That does not mean that my information is wrong. The brand that I promote has been granted a patent in 2006 by the US Patent Office which is not an easy feat as it requires a lot of hard evidence (unlike other brands of colloidal silver made to the expired 1924 patent. It also means that it is significantly different from earlier colloidal silvers or gaining a patent would not be possible. As you are keen on checking me out, then check out US Patent 7135195. You will find that it quotes numerous trials and studies from numorous governmental and university research establishments (not the manufacturer). These trials have been independently validated by the US Patent Office.

Furthermore it has been cleared as NON TOXIC by the US Environmental Protection Agency (unlike the humorous comparison to lead, cadmium and arsenic, or even other brands of colloidal silver).

The US Homeland Security have also recommended that this brand be stockpiled in case or a bio-terrorist attack and they do their homework on such things. But never mind, I'm sure that the humourous gushings are far more informed than the US Patent Office, the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Homeland Security and couple of dozen US governmental and university research centres.

As for suggesting that I "can cure cancer", that is a fantasy as I have never made that claim. I have simply written about other peoples research outside of the mainstream medicine. If I could cure cancer, my partner would no longer be suffering from it (which I also mention in my blog). That point was missed by the thorough research into me. I have looked at all and everything to cure her, so I find that comment particulary unnecessary.

I do not mind exchanging ideas with people or being questioned on mine. However, I find this forum to be simply abusive and the "research" on me to be very incomplete. I posted here in good faith to answer somebody else's question and all I have received is abuse, so I no longer wish to associate with this forum. I know some of you will say good riddance, so go ahead and have yourself a field day. Maybe you can have a competition to see who can be the most sarcastic.

bindeweede

27th July 2008, 12:37 AM

Dr Rustum Roy of Penn State University is one of the USA’s most eminent physical scientists. He reported:
“…when used alongside a traditional antibiotic, the Silver Solution has a synergistic effect, thereby extending the life of the efficacy of several antibiotics tenfold” (ref 6 (http://www.advancedsilversolution.com/Home_Page.php#References)). The New Colloidal Silver Solution can be applied externally (spray) or internally to protect you and your whole family. Colloidal Silver has been described by the Science Digest Journal as, “our mightiest germ fighter”, whilst also reporting that Colloidal Silver Solution is virtually non-toxic to humans and is emerging as a wonder of modern medicine.

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert, but are there not a few questions about Dr Roy's credibility?

I'm sure those with greater knowledge will be able to clarify.

http://www.advancedsilversolution.com/Home_Page.php

Oh, and while I can still edit, Wiki - not always to be believed, has this on Roy

Education and career

Roy was born, and received both BS and MS degrees in chemistry in India. He earned a Ph.D. in ceramics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic) at Penn State in 1948, and became an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) citizen in 1961. He had a long career at Penn State in geochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochemistry) and materials science. He founded the Materials Science Laboratory at Penn State and authored hundreds of technical papers. Roy is a member of the National Academy of Engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Engineering). His recent work has been on the relevance of the structure of water to homeopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustum_Roy#cite_note-0) which he defended from 'Homeophobia' by letter to The Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustum_Roy#cite_note-1)

bindeweede

27th July 2008, 12:55 AM

Oh, and this article does not seem to lend strength to the claims of Dr Roy.
http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-water-related-nonsense-from-rustum.html

bindeweede

27th July 2008, 01:08 AM

And there is this one....

Professor Rustum Roy of Penn State University, who has demonstrated the ability to use radio frequencies to make salt water burn
The radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water, releasing the hydrogen, Roy said. Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies, he said.
The discovery is "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years," Roy said.
"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Roy said. "Seeing it burn gives me the chills."
In today's energy problems, how has this not caught on?

http://www.twistedradio.com/ontheshow/brsnews.asp?artid=7858&cat=10&dismode=article

bindeweede

27th July 2008, 01:17 AM

Regarding point (b), the work by led by Rustum Roy (http://www.rustumroy.com/) [22 (http://badscienceblogs.net/?s=rustum+roy#rao:2007)] was anything but ignored: it was exposed for the worthless mess it was [23 (http://badscienceblogs.net/?s=rustum+roy#kerr:2008)]. Rao and Roy, who claimed to measure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy) changes in water ethanol which was supposed to have had something homeopathically present in it, were last seen trying to measure changes in water that some people had been thinking about (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/05/rustum-roys-intention-experiment-we-are.html).http://badscienceblogs.net/?s=rustum+roy

bindeweede

27th July 2008, 01:26 AM

And just to indicate that it is not just Americans who fall for utter tripe...

Quackery in the UK has friends in the highest places. Despite constitutional restrictions on the monarch's role in politics, our heir to the throne, Prince Charles, has decided to meddle most wholeheartedly in how public healthcare is provided.http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/06/bravewell-and-prince.html

bindeweede

27th July 2008, 01:36 AM

AND, from this very forum, a few months ago.....

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum//showthread.php?t=2375

bindeweede

27th July 2008, 01:48 AM

Sorry to be a total bore, but really you should go elsewhere to sell your junk, but have you come across...

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.Well, I shouldn't but ......you are an idiot. Go away (I could say that in a more picturesque way if you wish).

You are a confidence trickster.
http://www.blogigo.co.uk/majere/Common-argument-techniques-the-ignorant-the-learned/66/

SimonC

27th July 2008, 02:42 AM

The brand that I promote has been granted a patent in 2006 by the US Patent Office which is not an easy feat as it requires a lot of hard evidence...

That's an 'appeal to authority', if you'll forgive me for saying so. And not necessarily the most impressive authority either, I'd suggest. Did this patent (http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?CY=ep&LG=en&IDX=US4429685&QPN=US4429685) require a lot of hard evidence? Did the granting of a patent make it a good or worthwhile idea?

Graham Lappin

27th July 2008, 08:20 AM

I do not mind exchanging ideas with people or being questioned on mine. However, I find this forum to be simply abusive and the "research" on me to be very incomplete. I posted here in good faith to answer somebody else's question and all I have received is abuse, so I no longer wish to associate with this forum. I know some of you will say good riddance, so go ahead and have yourself a field day. Maybe you can have a competition to see who can be the most sarcastic.

You are selling a quack remedy and from your first post about "good" and "bad" bacteria, you showed your ignorance of anything scientific. If my research on you was incomplete then your research and knowledge of bacteriology is totally infantile. You are making money out a medical remedy that you are unqualified to sell and ignorant of its effects. Post that sort of nonsense here and exactly what did you expect?

As for your wife's cancer then I sincerely and honestly wish her a speedy recovery. If remarks made caused offense in that respect then they were unintended and I apologize. Contrary to what you may believe, this is not about personal abuse.

Graham Lappin

27th July 2008, 08:30 AM

Did this patent (http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?CY=ep&LG=en&IDX=US4429685&QPN=US4429685) require a lot of hard evidence? Did the granting of a patent make it a good or worthwhile idea?

Getting back to reality, that is a great link. I am responsible for my company's patents and there is a constant debate about what is worth and what is not worth protecting. I will save the link for future reference.

Pebble

27th July 2008, 10:54 AM

[/QUOTE] [/CharlieW] The US Homeland Security have also recommended that this brand be stockpiled in case or a bio-terrorist attack and they do their homework on such things.

I could cure cancer, my partner would no longer be suffering from it (which I also mention in my blog).

I posted here in good faith to answer somebody else's question and all I have received is abuse, so I no longer wish to associate with this forum. [/QUOTE]

Sorry you feel slighted, but when it comes to evidence, I'm afraid your arguments do not stack up.

Have indeed looked over your patent. It is clear that this substance has activity against many bacteria in vitro, and is relatively non toxic, so clearly appropriate for disinfectant and topical use. That was already known. There is some evidence for greater bacterocidal and bacteriostatic activity than other similar agents and that is sufficent for patenting. As for the evidence on internal use, this is very poor indeed. The evidence presented is of very low quality, and shown an appalling disregard for both human life and evidence.

From the patent: I have extracted the evidence presented on use for systemic conditions in humans:

Evidence of Effectiveness of 10 ppm Silver for Treatment of Human Ailments

A. Purpose of Example

The purpose of this example is to demonstrate the utility of silver-based composition embodiments of the present invention for treating a variety of human ailments. The studies in this section were performed in Ghana, West Africa, at the Air Force Station Hospital under the direction of Dr. Kwabiah, at the Korie-Bu Teaching Hospital under the direction of Sr. Sackey, and at the Justab Clinic/Maternity Hospital under the direction of Dr. Abraham. In total, fifty-eight (58) patients were treated using a composition of the present invention comprising 10 ppm silver. The composition was used both internally and externally as an alternative to traditional antibiotics. The ailments treated included malaria, upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, sinusitis, vaginal yeast infections, eye, nose and ear infections, cuts, fungal skin infections, and sexually transmitted diseases, such as gonorrhea.

B. Treatment Methods and Outcomes

Abdominal pain and Diarrhea. The method comprises the step of administering approximately 5 25 ml of silver composition, one to five times a day orally until there was a response. One patient was treated with about 10 ml (about two teaspoons) of a composition of the present invention three times in one day. The patient had a full recovery in one day.

Bronchitis. The method comprises the step of administering ca. 2 25 ml of silver composition orally, one to five times a day until there was a response. Two patients were treated with about 5 ml (about one teaspoon) each of a composition of the present invention for two times a day for three days. The patients had a full recovery in three days.

…

Otitis Media. The method comprises the step of administering a silver composition, one to five times a day to the infected ear until there was a response. One patient was treated with approximately two drops of a composition of the present invention comprising into the infected ear three times per day. The patient showed a full recovery in four days.
……

Gonorrhea. The method comprises the step of administering a silver composition to the infected area until there was a response. Two patients were each treated with about ten ml (two teaspoons) of a composition of the present invention three times per day. The patients showed an absence of symptoms within six days.

Malaria. The method comprises the step of administering a silver composition, one to five times a day orally to the patient until there was a response. Eleven patients were treated with about ten ml (two teaspoons) each of a composition of the present invention three times per day. The patients showed a resolution of symptoms within five days.

……

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease. The method comprises the step of administering about 5 25 ml of silver composition, one to five times a day as a vaginal douche until there was a response. One patient was treated with about 5 ml (approximately one teaspoon) of a composition of the present invention two times per day. The patient's symptoms resolved within five days.

…

Retrovirus Infection (HIV). The method comprises the step of administering a silver composition, comprising 5 to 40 ppm silver one to five times a day orally area until there was a response. One patient exhibiting HIV (human immunodeficiency virus )was treated with about 5 ml (approximately one teaspoon) of a composition of the present invention two times per day. The patient's symptoms resolved within five days.

…

Tonsillitis. The method comprises the step of administering a silver composition, one to five times a day as a gargle until there was a response. One patient was treated with a composition of the present invention three times per day. The patient showed full recovery within seven days.

Upper Respiratory Tract Infection. The method comprises the step of administering a silver composition, one to five times a day orally until there was a response. Two patients were each treated with about 5 ml (approximately one teaspoon) of a composition of the present invention three times per day. The patients showed full recovery within six days.

Urinary Tract Infections. The method comprises the step of administering a silver composition, one to five times a day orally until there was a response. Three patients were each treated with about ten ml (two teaspoons) of a composition of the present invention two to three times per day. The patients showed full recovery within six days.

C. Discussion

These results are consistent with the various in vitro tests reported herein. Essentially, the silver composition is extremely effective against a large number of microbes in vitro. However, the tests indicate that this effectiveness remains even in the presence of a large amount of organic material. The silver compositions are widely effective in vivo where the organic background is extremely high. Many other disinfecting agents are ineffective in the presence of a large amount of organic material and/or are too caustic or toxic to be used in vivo

Some of these are self limiting conditions, so relatively unimportant. But to use agents in this fashion with only transient 'symptomatic' recovery in HIV, gonorrhoea, malaria and pelvic inflammatory disease - is unethical, dangerous and stupid.

Graham Lappin

27th July 2008, 11:21 AM

Pebble

I looked over the patent as well and came to exactly the same conclusions as you. You obviously have more tenacity that I do in terms of constructing a detailed response - so thanks for that O0

This is actually a very good example of where a few results are blow out of all proportion in terms of the claims. I work with a number of groups, some commercial, some academic, who are trying to develop proper anti-infectives. Their research is scrutinised and the process is long an arduous. Unless a plethora of data are submitted to the regulatory authorities, including multi-site, statistically powered, double blind clinical trials, then they stand a real chance of getting the registration rejected. Stack this up against the evidence presented for the silver patent and the latter is pathetic and (as you say) ethically questionable.

I just do not understand how genuine drugs have to go through such an arduous process of approval (rightly so) whilst some other "remedy" can be marketed on the basis of such cavalier efforts. The two things are just so disproportionate.

Admin

27th July 2008, 12:58 PM

Yes I do promote colloidal silver, but only one specific brand. That does not mean that my information is wrong.

It doesn't mean it's right either!

What it does reveal, however, is that you have an interest in promoting this quackery - you make money from it.

The brand that I promote has been granted a patent in 2006 by the US Patent Office which is not an easy feat as it requires a lot of hard evidence

James Randi has been pointing out for years that the US patent office will issue patents for almost anything! (Links here (http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.randi.org&q=patent&sa=go&sitesearch=www.randi.org&client=pub-noaccount&forid=1&channel=pub-nochannel&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3B VLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3 A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000% 3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en) - look through them for examples)

We tend to think that if something has been patented that it has been rigorously checked out and that it must have been proved to work etc. When you see patents being awarded for things like Jam Sandwiches or Flying Saucers you'll soon realise that that's just not the case.

The US Homeland Security have also recommended that this brand be stockpiled in case or a bio-terrorist attack and they do their homework on such things.

Well I think we'll just assume your assertion to be false - I note you didn't supply any supporting evidence.

If the claim is in any way true, I bet it's not stockpiled for use in humans as you're promoting.

I posted here in good faith to answer somebody else's question and all I have received is abuse, so I no longer wish to associate with this forum.

You posted here to promote your commercial website (!)

There's plenty of evidence supplied above to show that your claims are false and indeed dangerous.

There's a very basic fallacy that people fall for with claims like this. The idea that because something can be shown to kill bacteria (or whatever) in a test tube that it therefore is the cure for whatever was in the test tube!

Colloidal silver kills bacteria in a dish. Therefore, drinking colloidal silver solution cures bacterial infections.

Domestos kills all known germs - dead. Therefore if you have a germ infection, the cure is to drink domestos!

This line of reasoning actually doesn't make sense - but it's easy to fall for.

Pebble

27th July 2008, 02:23 PM

I just do not understand how genuine drugs have to go through such an arduous process of approval (rightly so) whilst some other "remedy" can be marketed on the basis of such cavalier efforts. The two things are just so disproportionate.

Agreed. The problem I think is that only when licensed as a medicine is there any real control. Thus so long as one only claims it helps, you can do as you please. So recommending a damp cold towel on the head for headaches or temperatures is acceptable, and the same applies to ingesting potentially harmful substances sold for profit. Getting agreed legislation on differentiating between common sense harmless advice and such dubious activities is nigh on impossible.

JJM

28th July 2008, 12:44 AM

So, the patent is meaningless from the standpoint of proving efficacy. The Homeland Security reference is dubious. What about the EPA? If I uderstand correctly, the EPA regulates nano-silver the same as silver ingots (which are difficult to inhale, to say the least).

filippo lippi

28th July 2008, 05:03 AM

But if you drop an ingot on some bacteria it'll kill 'em 99.9% of the time, so if you eat one...

Cuddles

28th July 2008, 10:50 AM

Yes I do promote colloidal silver, but only one specific brand. That does not mean that my information is wrong.

This is entirely true. Which is why people didn't claim that that was why your information is wrong. As clearly pointed out, your information is wrong simply because it is unadulterated nonsense. The fact that you have a vested interested in lying about this is a completely separate matter, but one that was also worth pointing out.

JJM

28th July 2008, 06:48 PM

But if you drop an ingot on some bacteria it'll kill 'em 99.9% of the time, so if you eat one...Eat one bacterium or one ingot?

Perhaps I should have been more specific, other than noting that silver nanoparticles are regulated like ingots, which cannot be inhaled. Last year I reviewed a masters student's review on this topic (not a published thesis, therefore I cannot share much from it).

Silver nanoparticles have chemical properties that are not found in bulk silver. The upshot of the review was that there have been no safety studies on pharmaceutical use of nanoparticles (we do know that ingesting colloidal silver is not good). The higher antimicrobial activity shown by nanoparticles may portend toxicity.

While colloidal silver may be a safe, effective antimicrobial when topically applied. We do not know if nano-silver is a safe alternative (once again, no research). One should be concerned about the ability of the tiny nano-particles to penetrate the skin and cause internal problems.

ezenow

28th August 2008, 05:08 PM

ezenow

28th August 2008, 05:20 PM

Pebble

I just do not understand how genuine drugs have to go through such an arduous process of approval (rightly so) whilst some other "remedy" can be marketed on the basis of such cavalier efforts. The two things are just so disproportionate.

'genuine drugs'?? I do not think you fully appreciate how the pharmaceutical industry operates. Clinical trials for drugs cost many millions of £s and take years to run. A company will never invest this money and time unless they can patent and make millions from the end product. The effectiveness of the drug really does not come into it. Clinical trials need to show a response in just a few % of cases to get FDA approval. Lobbying and backhanders get drugs approved, not thorough research. Why do you think that mainstream medicine still tries to treat cancer with chemotheraputic agents that cause more deaths that lives they save?
You cannot patent Silver suspended in water, just like you cannot patent Vitamin C or Oxygen, which is why they are not put through the 'arduous' and very expensive trials. If they were many pharaceutical companies would go out of business over night.

FarSideOfTheMoon

28th August 2008, 06:37 PM

Not all colloidal silver is harmful. In fact when i was working in Uganda we used silver tablets called micropur to treat our drinking water. We used this to clean water that had caused cholera in some inhabitants of one refugee camp. I did not once have any ill effects from drinking water treated in this way and it tastes far better than iodine or chlorine. Actually we all drink and breath in chorine from our own tap water (those of us that drink it and shower in it) and it is far more toxic than silver.

You cannot compare the toxicity of chlorine with anything without knowing how much is actually in our water supply. You can go google that, but the level of chlorine in tap water has no detrimental effects on human health.

FarSideOfTheMoon

28th August 2008, 06:39 PM

'genuine drugs'?? I do not think you fully appreciate how the pharmaceutical industry operates. Clinical trials for drugs cost many millions of £s and take years to run. A company will never invest this money and time unless they can patent and make millions from the end product. The effectiveness of the drug really does not come into it. Clinical trials need to show a response in just a few % of cases to get FDA approval. Lobbying and backhanders get drugs approved, not thorough research. Why do you think that mainstream medicine still tries to treat cancer with chemotheraputic agents that cause more deaths that lives they save?
You cannot patent Silver suspended in water, just like you cannot patent Vitamin C or Oxygen, which is why they are not put through the 'arduous' and very expensive trials. If they were many pharaceutical companies would go out of business over night.

I don't think you understand it either.Drugs have to be effective enough for people to want to use them. There isn't a big conspiracy between health providers and drug companies to produce useless expensive drugs that have no benefits.

I haven't a clue what you are trying to say about Vitamin C and Oxygen.

And this is just plain offensive:

Why do you think that mainstream medicine still tries to treat cancer with chemotheraputic agents that cause more deaths that lives they save?

Have you any evidence that people who aren't going to die anyway are going through painful cancer treatments? Because that's what you imply. What do you suggest, we just let people die, or try to treat them with the methods with most chance of working? Or should we give them vitamin C to drink?

Pebble

28th August 2008, 07:17 PM

'genuine drugs'?? I do not think you fully appreciate how the pharmaceutical industry operates. Clinical trials for drugs cost many millions of £s and take years to run. A company will never invest this money and time unless they can patent and make millions from the end product. The effectiveness of the drug really does not come into it. Clinical trials need to show a response in just a few % of cases to get FDA approval. Lobbying and backhanders get drugs approved, not thorough research. Why do you think that mainstream medicine still tries to treat cancer with chemotheraputic agents that cause more deaths that lives they save?
You cannot patent Silver suspended in water, just like you cannot patent Vitamin C or Oxygen, which is why they are not put through the 'arduous' and very expensive trials. If they were many pharaceutical companies would go out of business over night.

I understand exactly how Pharma operates, but it is very clear that you do not. You are mixing truths with assumptions here.

Yes proving that something is safe and effective is very expensive, and private industry will usually only fund studies that they can make money out of. But when it comes to vitamins this is not true. large scale vitamin E trials have been undertaken in heart disease and funded without direct interference in the study conduct by pharmaceutical companies. (e.g. Roche). Vitamin C has been studied extensively in govenrment sponsored studies - neither of these work. Spironolactone has been studied funded by the researchers undertaking the work - that works. etc. etc. etc.

Just because it is difficult and expensive to conduct large scale trials, does not justify promoting untrialled agents. If silver is less toxic and more palatable than chlorine, many govenments would be happy to fund trials to prove this (Sweden eg), so if there were preliminary data to support your suggestion taking things to an acceptable level would be very possible indeed. I have not found even the beginnings of evidence to support your contention. So if you have any squirrelled away, please put that on your next posting rather than a further opinion piece.

By the way the kind of data used in the patent application is not what I call evidence.

Tim the Mage

28th August 2008, 08:55 PM

Why do you think that mainstream medicine still tries to treat cancer with chemotheraputic agents that cause more deaths that lives they save?

Not nearly as many as are killed by the rubbish that 'alternative' medicine peddles. I know people alive today twenty years after being treated by mainstream medicine for cancer. I know of no-one - I mean no-one at all - who is alive today because of homeopathic, herbal, or faith healing as a treatment for cancer. Why? Because it's all bollocks - nasty, lying, unpleasant, exploitative bollocks that preys on people suffering painful, often fatal conditions. The perpetrators are not naive and should be banged up with all the other criminals exploiting the sad and gullible.

Pebble

28th August 2008, 09:34 PM

Not nearly as many as are killed by the rubbish that 'alternative' medicine peddles. I know people alive today twenty years after being treated by mainstream medicine for cancer. I know of no-one - I mean no-one at all - who is alive today because of homeopathic, herbal, or faith healing as a treatment for cancer. Why? Because it's all bollocks - nasty, lying, unpleasant, exploitative bollocks that preys on people suffering painful, often fatal conditions. The perpetrators are not naive and should be banged up with all the other criminals exploiting the sad and gullible.

While I may agree with the sentiment, I think anecdotal statements followed by invective is not a rigorous evidence based approach.

Pebble

28th August 2008, 10:27 PM

.... Why? Because it's all bollocks - nasty, lying, unpleasant, exploitative bollocks that preys on people suffering painful, often fatal conditions. The perpetrators are not naive and should be banged up with all the other criminals exploiting the sad and gullible.

... The one thing I don't do (other than in the case of lassez faire economics) is certainty. ...

Paradox?

Tim the Mage

29th August 2008, 12:22 AM

Paradox?

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewpoetry.asp?id=173378&AuthorID=11815

Leave it off, old bean.

Acleron

29th August 2008, 01:41 AM

Matt

29th August 2008, 10:08 AM

Why do you think that mainstream medicine still tries to treat cancer with chemotheraputic agents that cause more deaths that lives they save?

That's not true and here's the empirical evidence to prove it

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/08/the_latest_scummy_tactic.php

The efficacy of cancer treatments has been tracked for decades by the National Cancer institute, and one can see that medical treatments for cancer over the decades have increased the survival rates from cancer, though more modestly than we would like.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/cancercontrolplanet.cancer.gov.jpg

Even from this figure though, we see the lie of the writer of this article. Certainly there are cancers we are still incredibly poor at treating. Pancreatic, certain brain cancers, and lung cancer come to mind. But what these cranks represent as our success rate is absurdly low. Further, their general disparaging of chemotherapy as a potentially curative treatment is belied by one of it's greatest successes - that is the incredible cure rates of the so-called liquid tumors, like leukemia and lymphoma. One of my favorite figures is this one from St. Judes showing the success rate of chemotherapy regimens for a childhood leukemia called AML over time:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/St.judes.jpeg

This chart of 5 year survivals of patients since the 1960s is from this paper from 1993 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/18/1289), and I've seen the updated data from St. Jude's researchers showing the most recent 5 year survival rates as high as 95%. To see our therapies which unquestionably are effective in the treatment of deadly diseases be disparaged so dishonestly is understandably upsetting.

ezenow

29th August 2008, 03:14 PM

Matt

29th August 2008, 04:05 PM

I did not mean to cause offence Matt. Unfortunately a majority of the children i work with who are fighting cancer die from infections. These infections take hold because of a flattened immune system caused by the chemotherapy. I'm not a big fan of statistics, i simply talk from my own experience. Where would this example fit into the St Judes graph?

Woman A develops breast cancer. Treatment clears up the breast cancer, but 2 years later further tumours are discovered on her lungs. She fights this for a further 5 years, but dies 5 years and 1 day after the lung tumours are found.

Is she on the graph twice as having survived her cancers?

No offense taken. The offense mentioned in the quote I gave is Mark Hoofnagle's offense at Natural News' anti scientific claim that Tony Snow was killed by chemotherapy when in fact he died from Colon Cancer that chemotherapy and surgury failed to cure.

Now you say that the majority of the children you work with die from infections. I'm not going to deny that some chemo patients do die from infections. The bit I have a problem with is a majority. Is that a majority of all patients or a majority of those who die? Surely you can't mean that a majority of these child patients die (of whatever cause) This article (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/big-increase-in-child-cancer-survival-rates-609475.html) says that 72% of child cancer patients now survive in the UK. If the majority of your patient don't survive do you perhaps work in a hospice where the majority of your patients have cancers that have already resisted treatments and are tragicly expected to die. That sort of selective dataset may give you a distorted view of the overall picture.

Clinical outcomes are monitored. If wherever it is that you work has lower survival rates than would be expected from not treating at all this will have been highlighted and the implication will be clear. You're doing it wrong.

However another alternative might be a simple reporting bias. A natural human tendancy to remember certain events more clearly than others may have skewed your perspective. It happens to us all and is not meant as any slight against you. I'm sorry but I'll take impartial stats over anyone's personal recolection of experience every time. We live in an era of evidence based medicine and that this has increased life expectancies is a fact. To deny it in the face of the wealth of evidence to the contrary is rather pointless.

That woman would fit nowhere on the St Judes Graph as it deals exclusively with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. The reference was there. I repeat it here.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/18/1289

The first graph is sourced from the SEER 9 registries.

Having been diagnosed with breast cancer I believe she would contribute to the breast cancer stats. Having survived over 5 years (even by a day) she would contribute towards the 5 year survival rate. What else...

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html?statfacts_page=breast.html&x=15&y=17 (http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html?statfacts_page=breast.html&x=15&y=17)

Having also been diagnosed with Lung Cancer I believe that she would contribute also to the lung cancer stats. Since she didn't survive over 5 years from the date of that diagnosis she would not contribute to the 5 year survivial rate. I would assume that it wouldn't make any difference if the histopathology of the lung cancer showed that it had spread from the breast, either before or after that earlier treatment. However full details of the methodology are available on the website.

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html?statfacts_page=lungb.html&x=16&y=23

Chemo IS a dangerous treatment, that's not in question but going untreated is a greater risk. We wouldn't do it if we weren't certain of this.

Pebble

29th August 2008, 09:42 PM

Matt,

Love your graphs. The improvement over time is startling whatever caveats one might wish to add.

speedy

7th December 2008, 03:08 AM

Hi I am the worlds greatest sceptic and was trolling around being all sceptical as usual and came across this post about colloidal silver.

2 years ago after a leg injure I had a very seriuos case of cellulitis. My leg was so badly infected and it was spreading so fast that they considered amputation.

I had been on intravenous antibiotic and then on tablets for 3 weeks and it receded and flared up dramatically again. They said that it was resistant. My body was taking a punishing with the sheer volume of antibiotics I was on. It was all getting extremely worrying and out of hand.

I was visiting the out patients every day for checking and one day this consultant came in that I had not seen before, he examined the leg and said " I want to give you some advice, the best thing you could do fir this is get yourself some colloidal silver" I saked him why and he said that the hospital had been doing extensive research on it and that it was worth a try. I got some and my leg rapidly healed...I was very grateful.

lost thought

7th December 2008, 10:33 PM

I have been trawling the net to get some info all I seem to be able to find are sites that a) Say how good it is, and b) try to sell it to you.
I know I should not laugh at this but.....
Youtube.com
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ahihGKZC5Kk
The Dangers of Colloidal Silver

It is difficult for those who do not have medical knowledge to judge as the internet provides a lot of information the trouble is deciding which is good and which is bad.
I did a normal google search and trawled through several pages singing the praises of Colloidal Silver products but only one page telling dangers, are most people prepared to do that much searching.
Information overload is a real problem if you can not find the right information.
And it is expensive if you work out the parts per million compared to buying a silver tea spoon and then sucking on it for 5 min a day:cheesy:
Leastways it will cause less harm unless you try to swallow it.

Lost ThoughtO0

Admin

7th December 2008, 10:39 PM

Hi I am the worlds greatest sceptic

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It's one of those "I'm not a racist but..." type of phrases isn't it?!!!

Mongrel

7th December 2008, 11:00 PM

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It's one of those "I'm not a racist but..." type of phrases isn't it?!!!

It's that thing about self rating your competence isn't it, I think Mojo has the URL for that paper on speed dial ;)

Pebble

7th December 2008, 11:15 PM

I was visiting the out patients every day for checking and one day this consultant came in that I had not seen before, he examined the leg and said " I want to give you some advice, the best thing you could do fir this is get yourself some colloidal silver" I saked him why and he said that the hospital had been doing extensive research on it and that it was worth a try. I got some and my leg rapidly healed...I was very grateful.

Why is this obviously a lie? If he/she was doing research he/she would have recruited you to the trial. if the trial was completed, it would have been presented or published. If the results were very promising then it would have been published in a high quality journal by now. it hasn't!

Provide real evidence or go back to selling your product!

bindeweede

7th December 2008, 11:29 PM

Why is this obviously a lie? If he/she was doing research he/she would have recruited you to the trial. if the trial was completed, it would have been presented or published. If the results were very promising then it would have been published in a high quality journal by now. it hasn't!

Provide real evidence or go back to selling your product!

It reads a bit like a "testimonial" on a quack's - sorry, "psychic surgeon's" web site.

Trinoc

7th December 2008, 11:34 PM

Provide real evidence or go back to selling your product!
Where exactly is anyone selling a product? Where is the advertising link?

I admit to being highly doubtful, but if this is an attempt to sell anything it is a pretty incompetent attempt. In the unlikely event that anyone would go out and buy CS based on this recommendation, it would be highly unlikely to profit the poster unless they happened to be the only person selling it.

Silver does have antibacterial properties. It is used in water filter cartridges to prevent bacterial colonies from setting up home amongst the carbon granules. Until a decade or two ago it was standard practice for all newborn babies to get a couple of silver-based eye drops to protect against sight damage due to certain STDs in the mother - I don't know whether the discontinuation was due to a genuine low risk assessment, cost, or simply that someone decided it was insulting to the mother to imply she might have an STD. The "miracle cure" claims for silver are bullshit, of course, but that doesn't mean its traditional antiseptic uses are invalid.

I have no idea whether the poster's claims hold water or not, but to imply that silver has no antibacterial properties just because a load of ridiculous hyped-up claims are made for it is not justified.

Mongrel

8th December 2008, 12:38 AM

Well, AFAIK, silver requires contact for it's anti-bacterial properties to work. Silver laced dressing are not uncommon and they're starting to use it on catheters as well.

As for speedys anecdote;

a) That's all it is, and anecdote.
b) (If true) If the consultant was participating in a trial and said "We're doing this right now...can't hurt" then it's an ethics breach.
b) i) If, on the other hand, the results were that spectacular then the trial would have been stopped (They can get stopped for overwhelming results as well)
c) Colloidal Silver has been investigated many times and been shot down every time. There's a vaguely plausible mechanism that doesn't stand up to scrutiny

With the 'selling' accusation, it's not just "Oh Hai! I had <problem> and the <Snake Oil> I got from <www.quacks.com> really worked!!1!!eleventy!" any more, there are many ways to push stuff up the Google rankings that can be a lot more subtle O0

Pebble

8th December 2008, 07:43 AM

Where exactly is anyone selling a product? Where is the advertising link?

I have no idea whether the poster's claims hold water or not, but to imply that silver has no antibacterial properties just because a load of ridiculous hyped-up claims are made for it is not justified.

If you read my previous posts you will see that silver dressings are indeed reasonable local antiseptics and the use of such dressings are part of mainstream management of wounds healing by secondary intention, simply to clear the superficial infection that slows this process. To suggest that this is a useful treatment for aggressive cellulitis as 'speedy' implies (prevent loss of leg!) is peddling falsehoods. To further suggest that any particular clinical benefit has been shown for colloidal subform is also incorrect.

Wild claims such as those made by 'speedy' need some explanation - why 2 years after the event is he/she trawling the internet looking for opportunities to retell his/her story? If just a misguided soul why so vague? I think more likely just spreading the 'good news' for gullible individuals to trip over.

One other point I have been in contact with the Royal College in Ghana, and they are investigating the hosptial that undertook the highly unethical trials that are presented in the patent application.

Trinoc

8th December 2008, 11:16 AM

Wild claims such as those made by 'speedy' need some explanation.
I agree entirely ... but I don't think we will elicit such explanations with what I would call sloppy skepticism, which just makes it appear that we are following pre-conceived beliefs in exactly the same way that we accuse the practitioners of alternative medicine.

The first three responses to speedy's post were an accusation of advertising, a claim that it is a downright lie, and even an attempt to draw an analogy with racism! If we all claim to be so rational, we should rebut the things we disagree with using reason, not personal attacks and sophistry.

FarSideOfTheMoon

8th December 2008, 12:19 PM

I agree entirely ... but I don't think we will elicit such explanations with what I would call sloppy skepticism, which just makes it appear that we are following pre-conceived beliefs in exactly the same way that we accuse the practitioners of alternative medicine.

The first three responses to speedy's post were an accusation of advertising, a claim that it is a downright lie, and even an attempt to draw an analogy with racism! If we all claim to be so rational, we should rebut the things we disagree with using reason, not personal attacks and sophistry.

I'm afraid I disagree in this instance....the tactics used by this poster are identical to those used by spammers and people trying to sell some dodgy MLM or alternative therapy.

The spam section is full of them.

It's usually possible to spot the people who naively believe something like this as opposed to the scammers, and this person is clearly a scammer.

2nd post (if it ever arrives now), will most likely be by a 'friend' or to a site with 'information' on it.

If the poster can substantiate this post as fact, then I'm sure everyone will retract what they said.

Pebble

8th December 2008, 12:33 PM

Trinoc

8th December 2008, 12:34 PM

I'm afraid I disagree in this instance....the tactics used by this poster are identical to those used by spammers and people trying to sell some dodgy MLM or alternative therapy.
Maybe so, but then where is the link to the scam? You can't lead lambs to slaughter if you don't know where the abattoir is.

Trinoc

8th December 2008, 12:47 PM

Sloppy! See posts 14, 18, 34, 52 & 54 - which speedy decided were not worthwhile reading.
These all pre-date speedy's post, so can hardly be regarded as responses.

Giving speedy the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is a genuine anecdote, however misguided it may be, and not a scam, then it is hardly likely he/she would be discouraged from posting it by prior posts claiming that it is impossible.

If I was Orville or Wilbur Wright posting in a Flight-Is-Impossible forum to say that I had just proved them all wrong, I would not look at prior posts and decide I must have been imagining I had just flown an aeroplane, and give up ... though I suppose I might have chosen a different forum.

Maybe speedy would get a better response posting to a woo medicine forum - I'm sure there are plenty who would give him/her a completely uncritical reception. The fact the post was sent to a skeptics forum suggests either a genuine attempt to debate the issue (in which case I fear our response has probably dispelled that expectation) or an extremely naive attempt at marketing.

I suspect we will never find out which. If speedy is a scammer he/she has probably moved on to other forums by now, and if the post was genuine then he/she has probably decided there is no point in debating with us since we appear to have made up our minds in advance.

When we respond to what seems to be a dubious post, I think we should take a moment to think how a response will look from the point of view of the original poster, assuming at least at first that the post is genuine. It is all too easy to wade in and respond from the point of view of our own preconceptions rather than seeing things from the other side.

Mojo

8th December 2008, 01:30 PM

It's that thing about self rating your competence isn't it, I think Mojo has the URL for that paper on speed dial ;)

I'll give you the Wikipedia page this time: Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect).

Mojo

8th December 2008, 01:58 PM

And they've now produced another paper: Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~ehrlinger/Self_&_Social_Judgment/Ehrlinger_et_al_2008.pdf).

Mongrel

8th December 2008, 03:37 PM

Thanks Mojo :smiley:

polomint38

8th December 2008, 04:53 PM

One thing I don't understand, if silver is antiseptic then why does it kill warewolves? :ponder:

I accidently typed that silver was antiskeptic but corrected myself. ;D

Trinoc

8th December 2008, 04:59 PM

One thing I don't understand, if silver is antiseptic then why does it kill warewolves? :ponder:
Are they supernatural creatures stalking around Hertfordshire? :smiley:

I know it's bad form to turn a joke into a serious point ... but why exactly should the fact that silver kills bacteria preclude it from killing werewolves (or even warewolves)?

polomint38

8th December 2008, 05:18 PM

Are they supernatural creatures stalking around Hertfordshire? :smiley:

I know it's bad form to turn a joke into a serious point ... but why exactly should the fact that silver kills bacteria preclude it from killing werewolves (or even warewolves)?

Just before reading (Berkshire) this reply, I maid a post suggesting that somebody maid shore they got there spelling correct.
I can't be perfect all the thyme.

Trinoc

8th December 2008, 05:55 PM

Just before reading (Berkshire) this reply, I maid a post suggesting that somebody maid shore they got there spelling correct.
I can't be perfect all the thyme.
Inevitable - it's a rule of the universe. Grammar and spelling pedantry posts invariably contain grammar or spelling errors - though this is the first time I've seen the effect projected into a different post. :smiley:

Admin

8th December 2008, 07:11 PM

The first three responses to speedy's post were an accusation of advertising, a claim that it is a downright lie, and even an attempt to draw an analogy with racism! If we all claim to be so rational, we should rebut the things we disagree with using reason, not personal attacks and sophistry.

There's also the problem that we can take these postings too seriously also!

It was clearly a hit and run posting intended to flame. No questions, no attempt at dialogue....

All I can say is that you get to recognise them after a while.

Pebble

8th December 2008, 07:53 PM

If I was Orville or Wilbur Wright posting in a Flight-Is-Impossible forum to say that I had just proved them all wrong, I would not look at prior posts and decide I must have been imagining I had just flown an aeroplane, and give up ... though I suppose I might have chosen a different forum.

A genuine attempt at skeptical dialogue, would have included some recognition that this issue has been thoroughly investigated within this thread, and if new evidence were available this would have been presented. So one may reasonably conclude that the statement 'world's greatest skeptic' is not a vaild description. The most cursory glance at the main web page would have led anyone with an IQ above 40 to the conclusion that an anecdote is not the way forward.

Before the Wrights it is not true that flight was considered impossible - balloon flight had been foing on for many decades, many groups were trying to develop machines with thrush and aerodynamic properties that would meet the known challanges of flight, since it was obvious that if birds could fly it can be done. Thus not an appropriate analogy.
To provide a similar analogy, do skeptics accept that there are agents that can be relatively saftely ingested that have bacteriocidal properties? Is it likely that given the evidence obtained to date after years of study that ionic silver of various forms is one of these? Given that the substantial body of available evidence is negative, what evidence would need to be presented to suggest that this position is no longer valid? Then we have something to discuss.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but being open to every bit of sewage chucked at one on this or any other forum - soils the mind.

polomint38

8th December 2008, 08:54 PM

Before the Wrights it is not true that flight was considered impossible - balloon flight had been foing [sic] on for many decades, many groups were trying to develop machines with thrush and aerodynamic properties that would meet the known challanges of flight, since it was obvious that if birds could fly it can be done. Thus not an appropriate analogy.

I thought the bad part of the analogy was that (and I may be mistaken on this) the Wright brothers were long dead before the internet forum was first devised.

ZERO

8th December 2008, 09:12 PM

many groups were trying to develop machines with thrush

..and colloidal silver prevented their ultimate success? ???

Trinoc

8th December 2008, 11:07 PM

You may all be right in this case. Speedy hasn't followed up the post, so hit and run looks like the most likely explanation. I just prefer to wait a while before assuming someone is trolling rather than just being a bit foot-in-mouth with a first post. We were all newbies once.

By the way, to whoever it was who objected, I should have referred to a "Powered-Flight-Is-Impossible" forum, of course.

Mongrel

8th December 2008, 11:44 PM

There's another form of spamming that's a bit more insidious as well, I only found out about it a few weeks ago after we had a flood of the tossers on a small forum I manage.

Spammer joins forum and posts a few, fairly innocuous messages.
Spammer doesn't reappear for a month or two
Spammer then changes his signature to "Get your quack remedy at www.snakeoil.com" now that his posts have fallen off the front page
Now every time someone Googles "quack remedy", it sees the link in their sig pointing to the dodgy website.
This affects the ratings for the dodgy website pushing it up the results when someone searches for "Quack remedy"

Sneaky, eh?

Pebble

22nd December 2008, 09:41 AM

Prof PK Nyame, Rector of the Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons in Ghana, has written back. The hospital (that carried out the 'research') is a military hospital, and the 'research' was carried out without the knowledge of the armed forces medical directorate. So while not much may change, the names of the researchers have been passed to the director of the food and drugs board. So the least I would expect is that they are banned from further research.

Zag

23rd December 2008, 12:30 AM

It was clearly a hit and run posting intended to flame. No questions, no attempt at dialogue....

All I can say is that you get to recognise them after a while.

Have you not considered the possibility of some people not enjoying the act of banging their head against a wall?

Anyhow I read this thread and decided to join the forum just to make a few comments on the subject. I am not involved in any way in selling or in any other way gaining from the sale of colloidal silver.

However I am a user and have recommended CS and as a result know 5 or 6 other people that use CS. I must say that I primarily use it topically and pretty much only swallow it if using it for a sore throat, after gargling with it.

I've used it maybe 7 or 8 years and love it. I have no intention of trying to prove it's effectiveness since I have in no way conducted the neccessary trials etc. What I can say is that it has been very effective for myself and people I know for such conditions as Sore throats, ear infections, infected wounds and eye infections.

I will give one example. One of my sons was prone to ear infections and in fact every few months would need a course of antibiotics. We began to reconise the early symptoms quite well and would immediately make a doctors appointment to get him on the antibiotics as early as possible. On one occasion we were not able to get him to the doctors as quickly as we would have liked and in some desperation I started using CS in his ears a number of times a day in the hope it might keep things at bay until he got to the doctors. By the time his appointment came it had cleared up "on it own" something it had never done before. That was the last time he needed antibiotics for that particular problem. Each time there was an onset of symptoms we used CS and it cleared it. Until he eventually grew out of the ear infections.

I've used it with great success many many times with a variety of similar type problems and while my evidence is clearly anecdotal I would not want to be without CS in my medicine cabinet. Of course if evidence comes to light it is dangerous, I may have to re-think but until then I will definitely keep using it. Which reminds me I actually came online and typed Coloidal silver into google with the plan on buying some more. :)

skbuncks

23rd December 2008, 01:26 AM

Have you not considered the possibility of some people not enjoying the act of banging their head against a wall?

Anyhow I read this thread and decided to join the forum just to make a few comments on the subject. I am not involved in any way in selling or in any other way gaining from the sale of colloidal silver.

Jolly good

However I am a user and have recommended CS and as a result know 5 or 6 other people that use CS. I must say that I primarily use it topically and pretty much only swallow it if using it for a sore throat, after gargling with it.

I've used it maybe 7 or 8 years and love it. I have no intention of trying to prove it's effectiveness since I have in no way conducted the neccessary trials etc. What I can say is that it has been very effective for myself and people I know for such conditions as Sore throats, ear infections, infected wounds and eye infections.

Your not interested in proving its effectiveness but use it anyway. As you have probably grasped already anecdotes count for didly. I introduce you to the following logical fallacies:
Post hoc propter hoc: if one event happens after another then the first must be the cause.
non causa pro causa: i gargled colloidal silver yesterday and today my sore throat is gone. Therefore colloidal silver cures sore throats

Sore throats have a tendency to sort themselves out over time, depending on their nature, so can ear and eye infections. I presume that the infected wounds in question were also kept clean, maybe a bit of antiseptic applied or a plaster also? Perhaps it was these that were that were the effective agent?

I will give one example. One of my sons was prone to ear infections and in fact every few months would need a course of antibiotics. We began to reconise the early symptoms quite well and would immediately make a doctors appointment to get him on the antibiotics as early as possible. On one occasion we were not able to get him to the doctors as quickly as we would have liked and in some desperation I started using CS in his ears a number of times a day in the hope it might keep things at bay until he got to the doctors. By the time his appointment came it had cleared up "on it own" something it had never done before. That was the last time he needed antibiotics for that particular problem. Each time there was an onset of symptoms we used CS and it cleared it. Until he eventually grew out of the ear infections.

So did it clear up on its own or was it the colloidal silver? How exactly do you know?

I've used it with great success many many times with a variety of similar type problems and while my evidence is clearly anecdotal I would not want to be without CS in my medicine cabinet. Of course if evidence comes to light it is dangerous, I may have to re-think but until then I will definitely keep using it. Which reminds me I actually came online and typed Coloidal silver into google with the plan on buying some more. :)

Agreed, your evidence is purely anecdotal. I have to ask why you're so reliant upon something whose efficacy is totally unproven. Infact whose efficacy has been totally falsified. The evidence is there that it is dangerous, you obviously have not read this thread thoroughly. I hope you now do. More worryingly you are jeapodising the health of your son in your adherence to colloidal silver in place of proven conventional medicine

skb

Pebble

23rd December 2008, 09:16 AM

Admin

23rd December 2008, 09:17 AM

I've used it maybe 7 or 8 years and love it.

You "love" it?

I've always found it rather odd just how emotionally attached people get to these types of ridiculous medicine or therapy. It suggests to me that it's playing a role in their lives that's more than just a simple remedy should.

Very odd.

I will give one example. One of my sons was prone to ear infections.....

This is where I get concerned over people like you. If you want to use this ridiculous treatment on yourself then it's your own look out; but unfortunately, you're in a position to impose your daft beliefs onto your children.

There are many instances of children being harmed because of their parents' idiotic beliefs. See What's the Harm? (http://whatstheharm.net) for examples.

I wish people would realise that "personal experience" doesn't mean that you know better than science etc. - it's just a recipe for fooling yourself.

Pebble

23rd December 2008, 09:56 AM

This is where I get concerned over people like you. If you want to use this ridiculous treatment on yourself then it's your own look out; but unfortunately, you're in a position to impose your daft beliefs onto your children.

.

Fair point, I had not noted that after the first excusable incident, he/she went on to use CS several more times without any medical evaluation. As I have indicated, on a probability basis, one is likely to get away with this. But if his/her child genuinely had recurrent bacterial otitis media, then the child was put at risk of permenant hearing damage.

Zag

23rd December 2008, 12:59 PM

Your not interested in proving its effectiveness but use it anyway.

skb

Clearly you have not understood me. I'm not interested in proving it's effectiveness to you. I'm quite satisfied that it works for me. I need no further proof. In the same way when I get hiccups I drink water from a glass with my head upside down. I know from anecdotal evidence it will work ( and my grandmother told me ) but I guess you just suffer with your hiccups until someone does the necessary scientific research. Since there no money in it, I suppose you will just always need to suffer with hiccups.

Zag

23rd December 2008, 01:05 PM

You "love" it?

I've always found it rather odd just how emotionally attached people get to these types of ridiculous medicine or therapy. It suggests to me that it's playing a role in their lives that's more than just a simple remedy should.

Very odd.

This is where I get concerned over people like you. If you want to use this ridiculous treatment on yourself then it's your own look out; but unfortunately, you're in a position to impose your daft beliefs onto your children.

I wish people would realise that "personal experience" doesn't mean that you know better than science etc. - it's just a recipe for fooling yourself.

Well it's easy to claim someones beliefs are daft, but from where I'm sitting yours are idiotic. However facts are that until I used CS my son was needing antibiotics on a regular basis, which by the way do have proven nasty side effects. His hearing was also permanently damaged ( yes this is while using antibiotics ) Then I used CS and was able to stop the symptoms from ever getting bad enough to need the antibiotics. Those my friend are facts. Of course you are free to interpret those facts however you wish and clearly you will interpret them in a way that suits your scepticism.

Hic

Zag

23rd December 2008, 01:19 PM

You "love" it?

I've always found it rather odd just how emotionally attached people get to these types of ridiculous medicine or therapy. It suggests to me that it's playing a role in their lives that's more than just a simple remedy should.

Very odd.

What a ridiculous argument. I also love ice cream, now for your argument to be valid.... Hmm no scratch that, bad example. :)

Admin

23rd December 2008, 01:19 PM

Of course you are free to interpret those facts however you wish and clearly you will interpret them in a way that suits your scepticism.

They're your unqualified assertions - not facts.

I won't be interpreting your claims at all as I simply don't believe that they're an accurate account. I've seen far too many anecdotal stories of miraculous cures from people who think they know better than medical science, than to take them seriously.

I just hope that should your son ever become seriously ill that you have enough common sense to seek professional medical care rather than trying to treat him yourself because you think you know better than medical professionals because of "personal experience".

skbuncks

23rd December 2008, 01:35 PM

I wouldn't be quite so hard on Zag.

Using CS or any other silver containing antiseptic topically is known to be very safe, and quite effective in many situations. Thus topical application to his child's ear because of the unavailability of conventional medicine is very reasonable.

However, drawing conclusions that it was effective is unacceptable. Ear infections - on the basis of frequency I will assume Otitis Media, would be fully protected from any possible effects of topically administered anything by the ear drum. Second, ear infections are grossly over diagnosed, particularly by families of children with supposed recurrent infections, and second by GPs. Third most antibiotics used for supposed Otitis Media are a waste of money.

There are a small group of children who do get recurrent bacterial infections of the middle ear, leading to glue ear, this is why we over diagnose and over treat.

Point taken. I was more concerned with ingestion that topical application. Onve you believe it works topically you are no doubt more susceptable to some of the other fantastical claims made for it.

Clearly you have not understood me. I'm not interested in proving it's effectiveness to you. I'm quite satisfied that it works for me. I need no further proof. In the same way when I get hiccups I drink water from a glass with my head upside down. I know from anecdotal evidence it will work ( and my grandmother told me ) but I guess you just suffer with your hiccups until someone does the necessary scientific research. Since there no money in it, I suppose you will just always need to suffer with hiccups.

No, you have not proven it to yourself. You just think you have. Anecdotes are not proof, that is why we have such things as clinical trials. They PROVE the effectiveness (or not) of drugs. I suggest you do yourself and your family a favour and learn how to tell the difference.

Well it's easy to claim someones beliefs are daft, but from where I'm sitting yours are idiotic. However facts are that until I used CS my son was needing antibiotics on a regular basis, which by the way do have proven nasty side effects. His hearing was also permanently damaged ( yes this is while using antibiotics ) Then I used CS and was able to stop the symptoms from ever getting bad enough to need the antibiotics. Those my friend are facts. Of course you are free to interpret those facts however you wish and clearly you will interpret them in a way that suits your scepticism.

Hic

Again, they are not facts they are anecdotes. The plural of anecdotes is NOT data.

skb

ETA: I dont suffer from hiccups but thankyou for your concern.

Pebble

23rd December 2008, 04:50 PM

Clearly you have not understood me. I'm not interested in proving it's effectiveness to you. I'm quite satisfied that it works for me. I need no further proof. In the same way when I get hiccups I drink water from a glass with my head upside down. I know from anecdotal evidence it will work ( and my grandmother told me ) but I guess you just suffer with your hiccups until someone does the necessary scientific research. Since there no money in it, I suppose you will just always need to suffer with hiccups.

Drinking water from a glass for something as harmless as hiccoughs, should not be compared with finding alternatives to proven medications for serious conditions.

Anecdotes are fine when one has nothing better to go on, and in the middle ages, many conditions were treated on the basis on anecdotes handed down from generation to generation - when of course your were not burning witches or paying for indulgences.

Most aspects of life have moved on considerably since then, as a consequence of scientific method - so we no longer burn witches, nor believe that giving money to rich clergy men will guarantee us eternal bliss, and we do not rely on anecdotes to decide which weeds administered as a potion will improve our chances of living to 40 years of age.

This is why everyone here is appalled at the chances you took with your childs hearing!

Zag

23rd December 2008, 06:50 PM

No, you have not proven it to yourself. You just think you have. Anecdotes are not proof, that is why we have such things as clinical trials. They PROVE the effectiveness (or not) of drugs. I suggest you do yourself and your family a favour and learn how to tell the difference.
ETA: I dont suffer from hiccups but thankyou for your concern.

I was not aware that silver was a drug.

As for proving it to myself, all I know is that when I use CS for certain conditions it clears it up and if I don't use it, I end up needing to go to the doctors for a drug of some sort. The fact you don't accept what is obvious to me, is of no concern to me and hence my claim in my first post of not spending time trying to prove it to people like yourself.

Zag

23rd December 2008, 06:54 PM

Drinking water from a glass for something as harmless as hiccoughs, should not be compared with finding alternatives to proven medications for serious conditions.

Anecdotes are fine when one has nothing better to go on, and in the middle ages, many conditions were treated on the basis on anecdotes handed down from generation to generation - when of course your were not burning witches or paying for indulgences.

Most aspects of life have moved on considerably since then, as a consequence of scientific method - so we no longer burn witches, nor believe that giving money to rich clergy men will guarantee us eternal bliss, and we do not rely on anecdotes to decide which weeds administered as a potion will improve our chances of living to 40 years of age.

This is why everyone here is appalled at the chances you took with your childs hearing!

Your wrong about the hiccups. Fact is that it can be cured with an unproven method. As such sceptics should not be using such methods until full clinical trials have been held.

Explain exactly what chances I took with my child's hearing? I believe I took no chances at all. Though saying that when I just followed my doctors help I did end up with a child with damaged hearing. Not that I'm blaming my doctor.

Pebble

23rd December 2008, 07:08 PM

Your wrong about the hiccups. Fact is that it can be cured with an unproven method. As such sceptics should not be using such methods until full clinical trials have been held.

Explain exactly what chances I took with my child's hearing? I believe I took no chances at all. Though saying that when I just followed my doctors help I did end up with a child with damaged hearing. Not that I'm blaming my doctor.

In what way am I wrong about hiccoughs? Please read my post again - I did not say whether anecdotal approaches were useless in respect of this condition. Apart from which, the impact of vagal nerve stimulation through variations of breath holding and oesaphageal stimulation (what you are actually doing with the glass trick) have actually been studied for this condition and there is some marginal benefit.

As to point 2 - see posts 86 & 88. As to your child with damaged hearing - care to provide details?

Zag

23rd December 2008, 07:20 PM

In what way am I wrong about hiccoughs? Please read my post again - I did not say whether anecdotal approaches were useless in respect of this condition. Apart from which, the impact of vagal nerve stimulation through variations of breath holding and oesaphageal stimulation (what you are actually doing with the glass trick) have actually been studied for this condition and there is some marginal benefit.

As to point 2 - see posts 86 & 88. As to your child with damaged hearing - care to provide details?

My son's hearing was damaged as a result of many ear infections. I would only ever be alerted to an ongoing infection when he started to get pain. Then an appointment would be made but would often be a day or two before he was seen and could start a course in antibiotics. By this time it had of course got worse.

Pebble

23rd December 2008, 07:28 PM

My son's hearing was damaged as a result of many ear infections. I would only ever be alerted to an ongoing infection when he started to get pain. Then an appointment would be made but would often be a day or two before he was seen and could start a course in antibiotics. By this time it had of course got worse.

Is this the same child that you used CS on or a different one?

Pebble

23rd December 2008, 07:43 PM

Perhaps time for some evidence: I shall assume that we are discussing Acute Otitis Media from your description, leading to chronic otitis media (glue ear). The evidence that antibiotic therapy prevents the development of chronic changes is less strong than is generally assumed, but that is a separate argument. Preventing chronic damage once the chronic process has started requires a completely different approach:

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25;(1):CD001801. Links
Comment in:
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Oct;135(4):507-10.
Grommets (ventilation tubes) for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children.

Lous J, Burton MJ, Felding JU, Ovesen T, Rovers MM, Williamson I.
Institute of Public Health, General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3, DK-5000 Odense C, Denmark. jlous@health.sdu.dk
BACKGROUND: Otitis media with effusion (OME), or 'glue ear', is very common in children, especially between the ages of one and three years with a prevalence of 10% to 30% and a cumulative incidence of 80% at the age of four years. OME is defined as middle ear effusion without signs or symptoms of an acute infection. OME may occur as a primary disorder or as a sequel to acute otitis media. The functional effect of OME is a conductive hearing level of about 25 to 30 dB associated with fluid in the middle ear. Both the high incidence and the high rate of spontaneous resolution suggest that the presence of OME is a natural phenomenon, its presence at some stage in childhood being a normal finding. Notwithstanding this, some children with OME may go on to develop chronic otitis media with structural changes (tympanic membrane retraction pockets, erosion of portions of the ossicular chain and cholesteatoma), language delays and behavioural problems. It remains uncertain whether or not any of these findings are direct consequences of OME. The most common medical treatment options include the use of decongestants, mucolytics, steroids, antihistamines and antibiotics. The effectiveness of these therapies has not been established. Surgical treatment options include grommet (ventilation or tympanostomy tube) insertion, adenoidectomy or both. Opinions regarding the risks and benefits of grommet insertion vary greatly. The management of OME therefore remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of grommet insertion compared with myringotomy or non-surgical treatment in children with OME. The outcomes studied were (i) hearing level, (ii) duration of middle ear effusion, (iii) well-being (quality of life) and (iv) prevention of developmental sequelae possibly attributable to the hearing loss (for example, impairment in impressive and expressive language development (measured using standardised tests), verbal intelligence, and behaviour). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to 2003), EMBASE (1973 to 2003) and reference lists of all identified studies. The date of the last systematic search was March 2003, and personal non-systematic searches have been performed up to August 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of grommets on hearing, duration of effusion, development of language, cognition, behaviour or quality of life. Only studies using common types of grommets (mean function time of 6 to 12 months) were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from studies were extracted by two reviewers and checked by the other reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Children treated with grommets spent 32% less time (95% confidence interval (CI) 17% to 48%) with effusion during the first year of follow-up. Treatment with grommets improved hearing levels, especially during the first six months. In the randomised controlled trials that studied the effect of grommet insertion alone, the mean hearing levels improved by around 9 dB (95% CI 4 dB to 14 dB) after the first six months, and 6 dB (95% CI 3 dB to 9 dB) after 12 months. In the randomised controlled trials that studied the combined effect of grommets and adenoidectomy, the additional effect of the grommets on hearing levels was improvement by 3 to 4 dB (95% CI 2 dB to 5 dB) at six months and about 1 to 2 dB (95% CI 0 dB to 3 dB) at 12 months. Ears treated with grommets had an additional risk for tympanosclerosis of 0.33 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.45) one to five years later. In otherwise healthy children with long-standing OME and hearing loss, early insertion of grommets had no effect on language development or cognition. One randomised controlled trial in children with OME more than nine months, hearing loss and disruptions to speech, language, learning or behaviour showed a very marginal effect of grommets on comprehensive language. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of grommets in children appear small. The effect of grommets on hearing diminished during the first year. Potentially adverse effects on the tympanic membrane are common after grommet insertion. Therefore an initial period of watchful waiting seems to be an appropriate management strategy for most children with OME. As no evidence is yet available for the subgroups of children with speech or language delays, behavioural and learning problems or children with defined clinical syndromes (generally excluded from the primary studies included in this review), the clinician will need to make decisions regarding treatment for such children based on other evidence and indications of disability related to hearing impairment.This review does not resolve the discrepancy between parental and clinical observation of a beneficial treatment effect and the results in the reviewed RCT showing only a short-term effect on hearing and virtually no effect on development. Is the perceived, often dramatic, effect of grommets only a short-term one? Are some children more sensitive to OME-related hearing loss than others? If so, how do we identify them?Further research should focus upon indications. Studies should use sufficiently large sample sizes to show significant interactions. There is a need to determine the most suitable variables and appropriate "softer" outcomes to be the subject of these interaction tests. Interesting options include measures of speech-in-noise and binaural hearing.The generally modest results in the trials which are included in this review should make it easier to justify randomisation of more severely affected and higher-risk children in appropriately constructed trials. Randomised controlled trials are necessary in these children before more detailed conclusions about the effectiveness of grommets can be drawn.

Pebble

23rd December 2008, 07:52 PM

And here is a little on Acute Otitis media - note the specific recommendation that no therapy is best for the first 48 - 72 hours (though the Canadian Guidelines diffir here). Second the best approach is pneumococcal vaccination, (there are similar observations from several countries).

Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2008 Oct;26(8):505-9.
[Acute otitis media in the era of pneumococcal vaccination.]

[Article in Spanish]

Baquero-Artigao F, Del Castillo F.
Unidad de Enfermedades Infecciosas Pediátricas. Hospital Universitario Infantil La Paz. Madrid. España. fbaquero@terra.es.
Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common childhood diseases and the main reason for prescribing antibiotics in developed countries. Indiscriminate treatment of children with an inconclusive diagnosis has favored the development of resistance, and this has led to the creation of clinical guidelines to promote judicious antibiotic use. AOM has shown high rates of spontaneous resolution and minimal benefits from antibiotics; hence a policy of observation for 48-72 hours before initiating treatment is justified in many children. In recent years, attention has been focused on developing effective vaccines against the most common causative pathogens, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae. The H. influenzae type b conjugate vaccine has little impact on AOM since most strains are nontypable. The 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine has an efficacy of 55% in AOM caused by vaccine serotypes, but replacement with nonvaccine serotypes and nontypable H. influenzae reduce the overall efficacy of the vaccine to 6-8%. An overall decrease of pneumococcal resistance to penicillin has been seen in vaccinated children, but there is a trend to an increase in antibiotic resistance in non-vaccine serotypes. High-dose amoxicillin is the treatment of choice for AOM, but the increase of H. influenzae in pneumococcal-vaccinated children may require reconsideration of this recommendation in forthcoming guidelines.

Zag

23rd December 2008, 10:44 PM

Pebble

23rd December 2008, 11:22 PM

Very interesting and in fact serves to back my argument. It appears that antibiotics have not been shown to be very effective.

"The most common medical treatment options include the use of decongestants, mucolytics, steroids, antihistamines and antibiotics. The effectiveness of these therapies has not been established."

So basically I used something that is equally unproven, but did seem to have at least the effect of curing the infection. His hearing didn't get worse but that could have been luck.

By the way just to clarify, I would never have replaced the doctor with CS, it was something as a first line of defence before a doctors appointment.

As expected you have completely missed the point. Real research shows what works and what does not. What is evident is that strep pneumoniae followed by a few other bacteria are the dominant causes of Acute Otitis Media, antibiotic therapy shortens the duration of symptoms, but only vaccination reduces the rate of progression to chronic infection, at which point grommets may reduce the amount of hearing damage. This has been shown in studies involving over 10,000 patient episodes, and yet has not fully answered our questions.

You think it is OK to counter this with your personal observations, using an approach that cannot possibly work - topical administration to the wrong part of the body of a completely unproven substance.

If you go back toward the beginning of this thread you will se that its unscrupulous manufacturers used a hospital in Ghana to 'treat' HIV and that patients felt better, and used this completely unethical piece of 'research' to help gain a patent. By purchasing this piece of rubbish you are supporting the murder of individuals with HIV in African countries. I hope you are proud of yourself.

niggle

17th January 2009, 12:26 AM

Pebble

17th January 2009, 09:15 AM

So what can we conclude? Well, I can't go any further than to say that in one case I know of, colloidal silver was definitely effective.

No. You cannot make this conclusion. You have noted a temporal association that is all.

But any normal, sensible person can figure out for themselves that human beings are not so dissimilar that it would be unlikley to work for anyone else.

No again. Just because something happens occasionally does not mean that the same will happen again predictably. If there is evidence of an effect proper studies are the way to find out. There have been hundreds of quack miracle cures for demyelinating conditions, most have gradually fallen into disreputable disuse.

Please do not waste our time with anecdotes, if you bothered to have a general look at the threads, you will quickly understand why such nonsense only irritates. If you firmly believe in this stuff, collate the available published research (of which there is remarkably little) formulate your arguments on the basis of what is known with certainty and what is conjecture.

Trinoc

17th January 2009, 11:49 AM

My wife uses colloidal silver every day.

She developed optic neuritis after visiting an ENT consultant preceding facial surgery and was plagued with terrible pain in her right eye. She was prescribed increasingly desperate doses of pain killers, beta blockers and steroids. Nothing worked.

So I asked a friend of mine who's a herbalist for advice - initially just to see if I could get something gentle to help my wife sleep. To my surprise she immediately said that colloidal silver, which I hadn't heard of, was gaining recognition among herbalist as being effective against demyelination.

So after weighing the risks, my wife tried it. And it works very well. The pain and swelling were reduced almost to nothing and sp were the terrible headaches which had accompanied them, although all the symptoms return of she stops taking the silver.

So what can we conclude? Well, I can't go any further than to say that in one case I know of, colloidal silver was definitely effective. But any normal, sensible person can figure out for themselves that human beings are not so dissimilar that it would be unlikley to work for anyone else.
Was this a case of using colloidal silver as a topical antiseptic (for which it is known to be effective), or the more woo-oriented practice of drinking the stuff in the belief that it will cure all of the body's ills?

JJM

17th January 2009, 07:36 PM

No. You cannot make this conclusion. You have noted a temporal association that is all. {snip}

Please do not waste our time with anecdotes, if you bothered to have a general look at the threads, you will quickly understand why such nonsense only irritates. If you firmly believe in this stuff, collate the available published research (of which there is remarkably little) formulate your arguments on the basis of what is known with certainty and what is conjecture.Excellent; but, may I explain to niggle: You do not know what would have happened if you had just waited longer. Think about it: if you had been hit on your head with a hammer (don't try this at home) and your wife's problem went away, what would you conclude? After all, the one thing followed the other.

Finally, colloidal silver is not a safe and effective drug in any situation. www.quackwatch.org

Admin

17th January 2009, 07:56 PM

My wife uses colloidal silver every day.

She developed optic neuritis after visiting an ENT consultant preceding facial surgery and was plagued with terrible pain in her right eye. She was prescribed increasingly desperate doses of pain killers, beta blockers and steroids. Nothing worked.

So I asked a friend of mine who's a herbalist for advice - initially just to see if I could get something gentle to help my wife sleep. To my surprise she immediately said that colloidal silver, which I hadn't heard of, was gaining recognition among herbalist as being effective against demyelination.

So after weighing the risks, my wife tried it. And it works very well. The pain and swelling were reduced almost to nothing and sp were the terrible headaches which had accompanied them, although all the symptoms return of she stops taking the silver.

So what can we conclude? Well, I can't go any further than to say that in one case I know of, colloidal silver was definitely effective. But any normal, sensible person can figure out for themselves that human beings are not so dissimilar that it would be unlikley to work for anyone else.

That story, of course, is an unsubstantiated anecdote, much beloved of the propagandists who promote the stuff they sell*, and cannot be used as evidence of anything.

Even if the story was genuine, how could we know the conclusion was the correct one? As JJM has just pointed out, it might have cleared up anyway and you've drawn a false conclusion.

* I'm not accusing niggle of trying to sell this stuff here, but propagandists leave anecdotes like the above all over the place to promote what they're selling in general.

niggle

17th January 2009, 08:17 PM

That story, of course, is an unsubstantiated anecdote

And I presented it as nothing more. I'm well aware that there's a paucity of robust studies in this area; I'm simply reporting a personal observation which might be of interest to an objective person.

it might have cleared up anyway

It hasn't cleared up. The symptoms return as soon as my better half stops taking the silver.

Admin

17th January 2009, 08:22 PM

I'm simply reporting a personal observation which might be of interest to an objective person.

You're presenting a subjective view that is of no value to anyone who wants to be objective.

We can be objective when you provide objective or tangible evidence.

niggle

17th January 2009, 08:41 PM

You're presenting a subjective view that is of no value to anyone who wants to be objective.

Well, that's how science works my friend: if enough subjective observations are noted, someone'll formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment to test it and - bingo! - we'll know whether the hypothesis is correct or not.

Admin

18th January 2009, 12:05 AM

Well, that's how science works my friend: if enough subjective observations are noted, someone'll formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment to test it and - bingo! - we'll know whether the hypothesis is correct or not.

Then why are you posting conclusions on this matter?

So, if we're going to be objective, perhaps you can inform us of the experiments (clinical trial etc.) that give us a conclusion. Colloidal Silver has been around for long enough to have passed the observation stage.

Mojo

18th January 2009, 09:41 AM

So, if we're going to be objective, perhaps you can inform us of the experiments (clinical trial etc.) that give us a conclusion. Colloidal Silver has been around for long enough to have passed the observation stage.
I've had a look (for the phrase "colloidal silver") on pubmed. There seem to be no controlled clinical trials.

Here's an in-vitro study of antimicrobial efficacy: Colloidal silver as an antimicrobial agent: fact or fiction? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15114827)

A couple of overviews:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8632503
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16766878

There are also plenty of reports of argyria, and this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15111684).

Mojo

18th January 2009, 09:49 AM

I was not aware that silver was a drug.

I've just noticed this classic comment from someone who claims to have used silver to treat conditions such as sore throats, ear infections, infected wounds and eye infections.

Yes, if you administer silver to treat (or to attempt to treat) medical conditions, then it is a drug. That is pretty much the definition of a drug.

niggle

18th January 2009, 12:35 PM

Then why are you posting conclusions on this matter?

Ah, reduced to desperately reimagining the meanings of words.

Of course anyone can see that I didn't claim to have conducted a study, nor to be presenting experimental results; I was quite clear that I was presenting personal observations and my own personal conclusions based on them.

So why, we may ask, are you pretending I've made some reference to climical trials? Very sloppy thinking there.

Pebble

18th January 2009, 01:24 PM

Ah, reduced to desperately reimagining the meanings of words.

Of course anyone can see that I didn't claim to have conducted a study, nor to be presenting experimental results; I was quite clear that I was presenting personal observations and my own personal conclusions based on them.

So why, we may ask, are you pretending I've made some reference to climical trials? Very sloppy thinking there.

I recommend you look at posts 18, 34, 37, 52 & 54. From these you may begin to get some insight into why the approach you are taking is nonsense.

As for clinical trials, look again, it was not suggested that you had referred to any clinical trials, merely pointed out that if you wished to be taken seriously you should.

Your approach would be entirely acceptable if this were a completely new observation on an agent that no one else had thought of assessing in this particular way. Your epiphany, might lead to rigorous studies that pointed to a new way forward. Unfortunately, you have missed the boat here by years. Silver was widely used in medicine before clinical trials were used. When scientific method started being applied, it rapidly became apparent that silver and silver salts were toxins with no demonstrable systemic benefit. It is still widely used as a topical antiseptic, since its value has been demonstrated in this field. Colloidal silver is simply an invention to circumnavigate what has been conclusively shown, and to claim that this toxin is in some way special. The data is slowly stacking up to show that that which was true of silver is also so for this fancy patented (money making) variety.

Of course CS manufacturers have no interest in proper scientific study of their product! interesting that.

Admin

18th January 2009, 02:31 PM

Ah, reduced to desperately reimagining the meanings of words.

No.

Of course anyone can see that I didn't claim to have conducted a study, nor to be presenting experimental results; I was quite clear that I was presenting personal observations and my own personal conclusions based on them.

Which is what I was highlighting. That your own 'personal conclusions' are anecdotal and therefore worthless for anyone wishing to take an informed position on the issue.

So why, we may ask, are you pretending I've made some reference to climical trials? Very sloppy thinking there.

I didn't - as is clear for all to see simply by reading the previous posts.

I suggest you read what Pebble is saying.

Mojo

19th January 2009, 08:44 AM

Then why are you posting conclusions on this matter?Ah, reduced to desperately reimagining the meanings of words.
You certainly are, if you are claiming that you were not posting conclusions when you posted this:
So what can we conclude? Well, I can't go any further than to say that in one case I know of, colloidal silver was definitely effective. But any normal, sensible person can figure out for themselves that human beings are not so dissimilar that it would be unlikley to work for anyone else.
You clearly concluded that it worked for your wife and that we should therefore conclude that it is likely to work for anyone else.

niggle

19th January 2009, 09:25 AM

Colloidal silver is simply an invention to circumnavigate what has been conclusively shown, and to claim that this toxin is in some way special.

And yet it certainly works for my wife - as attested by two opthalmologists examining her after the surgery I mentioned earlier.

If you choose to selectively ignore evidence which doesn't fit what you've been told to think, go ahead, I don't mind - but you probably shouldn't pretend you have any objective interest in the issue.

NorthernSoul

19th January 2009, 09:37 AM

Niggle,

Your wife is anecdotal evidence, we were not there and cannot possibly hypothesise about what other conditions may hve helped her recovery, a better diet, the placebo effect, another treatment. Since we are not able to rule out these other possibilities, we cnnot accept your wife as evidence of anything. Please try to understand, we are not trying to ignore what you are saying, we just don't see it as of a high enough standard.

niggle

19th January 2009, 10:18 AM

Please try to understand, we are not trying to ignore what you are saying, we just don't see it as of a high enough standard.

I agree - which is why I said at the beginning that even I can't go any further than saying the medication seems to work in one isolated case.

Good points about the possible other factors though - we talked about that at home and our diet hadn't changed, nor had her job or exercise regime, there haven't been any other medications and we tentatively discounted the placebo effect because if it was present then the other medications she was prescribed first should probably have worked as well.

NorthernSoul

20th January 2009, 03:16 AM

I agree - which is why I said at the beginning that even I can't go any further than saying the medication seems to work in one isolated case.

This is still the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Good points about the possible other factors though - we talked about that at home and our diet hadn't changed, nor had her job or exercise regime, there haven't been any other medications and we tentatively discounted the placebo effect because if it was present then the other medications she was prescribed first should probably have worked as well.

Not necessarily, the placebo effect is strange in that it seems to work better with big pills rather than small ones, coloured ones rather than white ones and assumably more complicated treatments rather than simple ones.

So you simply cannot discount it on the basis you describe.

niggle

20th January 2009, 10:02 AM

This is still the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

It could be, yes - now all you have to do is come up with a really convincing alternative cause which fits the effect. Clearly saying, "the cause you attribute is wrong, it must have been one of the many millions of other possible causes - but I'm not going to say which one or show why it is more likely than yours" would be nonsense, a sloppy workaround to avoid actually showing why my explanation is incorrect.

So, do you have an alternative cause which both fits the effect better and is more likely than what I'm proposing, namely that the silver causes the improvement?

So you simply cannot discount it on the basis you describe.

Actually yes you can: as you say according to the normal accepted observations of the placebo effect, more complex and convoluted treatments work better. Well, clearly trips to hospital, huge, complicated machines, endless consultations and long courses of expensive, branded, powerful drugs prescribed by supporting qualfiied expert doctors should yield a much stronger placebo effect than a bottle of mail-order funny-tasting water.

I'd be interested to hear what basis you have for believing that the normal accepted placebo effect does not work at all in this case and in fact works in reverse with a less complex treatment working better.

Mojo

20th January 2009, 10:44 AM

I agree - which is why I said at the beginning that even I can't go any further than saying the medication seems to work in one isolated case.

You may have said that, but you immediately followed it with a statement that went much further:
But any normal, sensible person can figure out for themselves that human beings are not so dissimilar that it would be unlikley to work for anyone else.

niggle

20th January 2009, 11:10 AM

You may have said that, but you immediately followed it with a statement that went much further:

I would have thought it is reasonable uncontroversial to say that a medication which works for one person could well work for someone else; after all the concept does underlie all of medical science.

Additionally, it's worth considering that the silver was recommended by a herbalist, but not at random - it was recommended based on reports that it was effective against demyelination, which again suggests that the treatment works for more than one person.

Still, it's possible that you have some excellent reasoning which will show that a medication might only work for one specific person, despite that not being a commonly accepted idea. So do you?

Mojo

20th January 2009, 11:27 AM

Still, it's possible that you have some excellent reasoning which will show that a medication might only work for one specific person, despite that not being a commonly accepted idea. So do you?

That wasn't the point I was making, which was that from a single anecdote you had arrived at the conclusion that "any normal, sensible person can figure out for themselves" that it is likely to work for most people, which directly contradicts your claim that you didn't "go any further than saying the medication seems to work in one isolated case". Your anecdote doesn't even establish that it worked for the single person concerned.

If you want to ask for evidence that a medication may only work for one specific person, I suggest you go and ask a homoeopath (or even, if they are the type of herbalist that prescribes "individualised" medicines, your herbalist friend). That's their claim, not mine.

niggle

20th January 2009, 11:35 AM

from a single anecdote you had arrived at the conclusion that "any normal, sensible person can figure out for themselves" that it is likely to work for most people

Please read the post: I said that it was unlikely not to work for anyone else. I certainly didn't say that it is likely to work for most people.

Your anecdote doesn't even establish that it worked for the single person concerned.

And I welcome good reasoning or evidence to show that it did not work for her. If you can provide some, please go ahead.

If you want to ask for evidence that a medication may only work for one specific person, I suggest you go and ask a homoeopath

Do you believe in homeopathy now? If not, how would that show that some treatments only work for one person?

Mojo

20th January 2009, 11:56 AM

Please read the post: I said that it was unlikely not to work for anyone else. I certainly didn't say that it is likely to work for most people.
You said that it is "unlikely not to work for anyone else". Removing your double negative gives us the statement that it is likely to work for anyone else. If a treatment is likely to work for anyone else, than it is likely to work for most people. The two statements have the same meaning.

And I welcome good reasoning or evidence to show that it did not work for her. If you can provide some, please go ahead.
It is an uncontrolled anecdote. There is no way to know what other factors may have had an effect on her condition. You cannot conclude efficacy from an anecdote of this sort (do you believe that whistling keeps away tigers?)

Do you believe in homeopathy now? If not, how would that show that some treatments only work for one person?

No, I don't. I have not claimed that treatments only work for one person (although homoeopaths frequently use this idea as an excuse for their failure to carry out adequate trials of their treatments). I was merely pointing out that you went much further than considering your wife's case as a single anecdotal account, despite your denials that you had done this.

Incidentally, this is the second post in a row that you have attributed a strawman argument to me.

niggle

20th January 2009, 12:17 PM

The two statements have the same meaning.

No, they don't.

One of them means, "as this treatment worked for one person, it may work for some others".

The other - your reinvention - means, "as this treatment worked for one person, it will probably work for most others".

Be clear about this: I meant the former. Claiming I meant the latter no matter what I say and attacking it is a weak tactic called the straw man fallacy. Look it up please.

There is no way to know what other factors may have had an effect on her condition.

As I said earlier, claiming that vague, unspecified factors which you won't present for examination were responsible for the effect isn't convincing. If you want to propose one or more which you think fit the observations and are more likely, please go ahead. But no rational person would accept hand-waving, mumbling and claims that secret invisible forces caused the effect over a straightforward claim that a treatment caused the effect.

this is the second post in a row that you have attributed a strawman argument to me.

You really, really need to look up the straw man fallacy. I asked you a straight question based on what you said to give you the opportunity to present your own point. A straw man is when you present a distorted version of an opponent's point for them then attack it.

Mojo

20th January 2009, 01:25 PM

You really, really need to look up the straw man fallacy. I asked you a straight question based on what you said to give you the opportunity to present your own point. A straw man is when you present a distorted version of an opponent's point for them then attack it.
You implied that I needed to provide evidence that there are treatments which only work in one specific person:
Still, it's possible that you have some excellent reasoning which will show that a medication might only work for one specific person, despite that not being a commonly accepted idea. So do you?
I had not argued this. Therefore the argument you attributed to me was a strawman of your own creation. By the definition you have just provided.

Mojo

20th January 2009, 01:30 PM

As I said earlier, claiming that vague, unspecified factors which you won't present for examination were responsible for the effect isn't convincing. If you want to propose one or more which you think fit the observations and are more likely, please go ahead. But no rational person would accept hand-waving, mumbling and claims that secret invisible forces caused the effect over a straightforward claim that a treatment caused the effect.
A straightforward claim based on evidence that does not support it.

I have not invoked "secret invisible forces". It is not necessary to do so to point out the shortcomings of uncontrolled anecdotes. Try regression to the mean, spontaneous recovery, confirmation bias, and the good old placebo effect for starters.

Mojo

20th January 2009, 01:43 PM

Further to the above post:

Of course, I have no idea which, if any, of the above factors may be involved; the point is, though, that neither do you. Without a control you have no way of knowing what the outcome would have been without the treatment. Without knowing that, you cannot conclude that the treatment had an effect.

niggle

20th January 2009, 01:44 PM

I had not argued this. I know. That's why I asked you if you were making the claim. A straight question which you have yet to grace with a straight answer.

A straightforward claim based on evidence that does not support it.Actually what evidence we have supports it very well. If you think it doesn't, you'll have to show why not. This answer is just more hand-waving and mumbling.

I have not invoked "secret invisible forces".Actually you have: you claimed there are other possible sources for the effect but wouldn't say what they were.

As for those you do now cite, none either fit the observation or are more likely than the existing best explanation:

regression to the meanThe condition has not been reduced, it returns as bad as ever when the treatment stops.

spontaneous recoveryAs above.

confirmation biasUnless my wife is lying about the improvement or secretly taking other medication this can safely be dismissed as the ad hominem it is.

the good old placebo effectThis has already been dealt with.

So, none of your explanations are a better fit than the simplest one: namely that the treatment causes the effect. Do you have any other reasoning or evidence to offer?

niggle

20th January 2009, 01:46 PM

Without a control you have no way of knowing what the outcome would have been without the treatment.

As I've pointed out, of course we can: the condition has not been cured and returns as soon as the treatment is withdrawn.

Mojo

20th January 2009, 02:08 PM

I know. That's why I asked you if you were making the claim. A straight question which you have yet to grace with a straight answer.Wrong again:
If you want to ask for evidence that a medication may only work for one specific person, I suggest you go and ask a homoeopath (or even, if they are the type of herbalist that prescribes "individualised" medicines, your herbalist friend). That's their claim, not mine.
In any case, you didn't ask me a straight question about whether I was making the claim; you asked me to support it:
Still, it's possible that you have some excellent reasoning which will show that a medication might only work for one specific person, despite that not being a commonly accepted idea. So do you?Why would I be expected to provide evidence to support a claim that I had not, in fact, made?

Mojo

20th January 2009, 02:12 PM

As I've pointed out, of course we can: the condition has not been cured and returns as soon as the treatment is withdrawn.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

Without a control you cannot know that there is a causal relationship. What you have (as you have conceded) is an uncontrolled anecdote. If you want to demonstrate a causal relationship you need a properly controlled trial.

niggle

20th January 2009, 02:15 PM

In any case, you didn't ask me a straight question about whether I was making the claim; you asked me to support it: So in companing about non-existent straw men you were actually agreeing with me that a treatment is unlikely to only work for one person?

Well, I never saw such tact.

Do you have any answer to the rest of the points of yours I debunked? Your incessant complaints about irrelevant side issues makes it look a lot like you can't debate the main points.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, huh? Again, if you have a cause which better fits the observations and which is more likely than mine, go ahead and present it. Accepting that the best fitting, most likely cause is the one leading to the effect is not a post hoc fallacy, it's common sense.

Without a control you cannot know that there is a causal relationship. Again, this is just invoking secret, magical causes which you don't name as being possible alternatives. Doing so doesn't discredit the working claim we do have.

Mojo

20th January 2009, 04:08 PM

So in companing about non-existent straw men you were actually agreeing with me that a treatment is unlikely to only work for one person?

Well, I never saw such tact.That wasn't the point I was making, which was that you had indeed gone further than saying you were just discussing a single anecdote. Your suggestion that I was claiming that treatments might only work in one specific person was irrelevant.

Do you have any answer to the rest of the points of yours I debunked? Your incessant complaints about irrelevant side issues makes it look a lot like you can't debate the main points.
The main point is that your anecdote allows us to draw no actual conclusion about the efficacy of colloidal silver, because we have no way of knowing what would have happened had it not been administered. Dismissing this as "handwaving" won't change that fact.

Do you have any results from controlled trials?

niggle

20th January 2009, 04:44 PM

OKay, let's see:

we have no way of knowing what would have happened had it not been administered.

Yup, I've answered that already.

Dismissing this as "handwaving" won't change that fact.

And dealt with this too.

Do you have any results from controlled trials?

And answered this as well.

Mojo, all you're doing is asking the same questions over and over because you don't like the answers you've got, so instead of dealing with them you're just asking the same things again in the hope that this time you'll get an one you like.

It's not going to happen. There are points on the table for discussion. If you can show that they're wrong, show how and where. just ignoring answers you don't like isn't going to help you.

Pebble

20th January 2009, 07:51 PM

OKay, let's see:

Yup, I've answered that already.

And dealt with this too.

And answered this as well.

Mojo, all you're doing is asking the same questions over and over because you don't like the answers you've got, so instead of dealing with them you're just asking the same things again in the hope that this time you'll get an one you like.

It's not going to happen. There are points on the table for discussion. If you can show that they're wrong, show how and where. just ignoring answers you don't like isn't going to help you.

As I understand the nub of your argument, it boils down to:

1. Here is my (wife's) personal experience
2. I firmly believe that 'snake oil' helps my wife, because when I stop giving it to her she gets worse
3. You can't prove that this is not so
4. Accept the central fact that something must be doing something good
5. I will say it was the snake oil, unless you can provide evidence acceptable to me of an alternate plausible explanation - you must accept that I may be right.

All the reasons why this is a poor approach have been very clearly and carefully expressed, and you simply reject them as they do not meet condition 5 which you hold as inviolable.

The position you are taking is that of a believer. This is the argument for a given god, particular miracles, ghosts etc etc.

Science does not set out to prove negatives. The role of science is to prove reproducible positives. We can show what works. When something is tested and fails, science has not proven it to be useless, but when in test after test it fails, then anecdotes alone are no longer a sufficient reason for clinging to cherished ideas.

Of course believers will always be with us. No matter how well it is shown that cleanliness is essential to prevent infection, that smoking causes lung cancer, that man contributes to global warming there will be those who disagree on faith, because of personal experience.

If you wish to debate on a serious level, drop the anecdote, look up the trials, and we can have a serious debate about the merit and demerits of these.

niggle

21st January 2009, 11:43 AM

As I understand the nub of your argument, it boils down to:

No, it boils down to:

1. Here is my (wife's) personal experience
2. I firmly believe that the 'snake oil' is possibly helping my wife, because when I stop giving it to her she gets worse
3. That seems the most likely hypothesis and nobody seems able to provide a more likely one.
4. I will say it was the snake oil, unless you can provide an alternate more plausible explanation - you must accept that I may be right.

So yes, you were close. If you don't have an explanation that fits the facts better than mine and are unable to show that my explanation is incorrect then yes, it would be rational for you to accept the possibility that the 'snake oil' is causing the effect.

If you have no usable alternative explanation and are unable to show that mine is incorrect - and let's be honest, both are true in this case - then it's actually you who is taking the faith-based stance by ignoring the presented evidence and the fact that it contradicts your deeply-held belief in you holy book of science.

That probably makes you uncomfortable or perhaps even angry. If so, an enquiring person will ask themselves why this is instead of resorting to cheap shots and name-calling.

NorthernSoul

21st January 2009, 01:26 PM

No, it boils down to:

1. Here is my (wife's) personal experience
2. I firmly believe that the 'snake oil' is possibly helping my wife, because when I stop giving it to her she gets worse
3. That seems the most likely hypothesis and nobody seems able to provide a more likely one.
4. I will say it was the snake oil, unless you can provide an alternate more plausible explanation - you must accept that I may be right.

Plausible alternative: Placebo

Why I can't come up with anything else personally: Because this is an anecdote and I was not there. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of variables to be considered.

So yes, you were close. If you don't have an explanation that fits the facts better than mine and are unable to show that my explanation is incorrect then yes, it would be rational for you to accept the possibility that the 'snake oil' is causing the effect.

I accept the possibility, you however seem to have long sinced concluded that is is the only possibility, we have pointed out why that would be illogical.

Moreover, I cannot prove a negative. Prove that it wasn't magical fairies that cured your wife...what you can't? Then I conclude it was fairies...

If you have no usable alternative explanation and are unable to show that mine is incorrect - and let's be honest, both are true in this case - then it's actually you who is taking the faith-based stance by ignoring the presented evidence and the fact that it contradicts your deeply-held belief in you holy book of science.

Holy book of science? You have no idea how much everyone is laughing at you right now.

In responce. again I cannot prove a negative and have posed possible alternatives...placebo effect, and fairy dust.

That probably makes you uncomfortable or perhaps even angry.

Trying to get through to you frustrates me, but really I just consider you a fleeting amusement.

If so, an enquiring person will ask themselves why this is instead of resorting to cheap shots and name-calling.

The name-calling began because of your twisted logic and inability to comprehend the arguments of posters. Your ignorance and close-mindedness is what generates the name-calling and though I do not condone it as a debating technique, this is not a debate, it is a frivolous attempt to make you see sense.

ETA: In this message I called your logic twisted, I've just realised that it isn't so much twisted as simplistic and 2D, that of a <10 year old perhaps.

Pebble

21st January 2009, 01:46 PM

That probably makes you uncomfortable or perhaps even angry. If so, an enquiring person will ask themselves why this is instead of resorting to cheap shots and name-calling.

There is hope yet. At least you recoil at being called a believer. The first step on the road to skepticism, welcome to SA (Skeptics Anonomous).

niggle

21st January 2009, 01:52 PM

Plausible alternative: Placebo

I've dealt with that one already.

There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of variables to be considered.

Then what are they? If there are plausible alternative explanations which are more likely than mine, why are you unable to say what they are?

you however seem to have long sinced concluded that is is the only possibility

That is utter garbage. I have said no such thing. it is not the only possibility, it is only the most likely one that fits.

So come on. If you're so much smarter than me, why don't you tell us what your explanation is and show us why it's more likely than mine? The floor is yours.

niggle

21st January 2009, 01:53 PM

There is hope yet. At least you recoil at being called a believer. The first step on the road to skepticism, welcome to SA (Skeptics Anonomous).

What a lot of assumptions you have in place of any real knowledge.

Croydon Bob

21st January 2009, 02:07 PM

You have no idea how much everyone is laughing at you right now.

Indeed yes. This is the second time in just a few days that "niggle" has gone through the 'poor argument followed by abuse' routine. It seems to be quite good at arguing but rubbish at actually making any valid points and thinks that we won't notice that it is being stupid and name-calling as long as it throws those charges at us.

NorthernSoul

21st January 2009, 02:09 PM

I've dealt with that one already.

Sorry...remind me? Maybe I missed something, you dismissed it on the basis that the placebo effect should work with other medications too, I explained why that is not the case and that is the last that was said on the subject.

Then what are they?

Variables could include: Diet, exercise regime, sleep, use of cosmetics, hormonl changes, stress, weather, choices of clothing, and a huge number of other possibilities.

If there are plausible alternative explanations which are more likely than mine, why are you unable to say what they are?

I have, you ignored it and claimed you had dealt with it when, to the best of my knowledge, you haven't. AGAIN this is an anecdotal tale I WASN'T THERE so there may be details you are innocently neglecting that could explain what you describe.

That is utter garbage. I have said no such thing. it is not the only possibility, it is only the most likely one that fits.

You flip-flop like a bad politician.

So come on. If you're so much smarter than me,

This is quite a funny sort of ad hominem, I think I can call it that.

why don't you tell us what your explanation is and show us why it's more likely than mine? The floor is yours.

The placebo effect, why is it more likely? Because it is a well documented phenomenon which fits what you are describing, the first treatments didn't work, so when your wife came across some supposed miracle cure with a nice colour and feel to it, she decided it must work, so it seemed to, via the placebo effect. Your explanation on the other hand, has no documented basis and is based on a very simple logic.

All I want is for you to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, your conclusion here is not the only possibility.

niggle

21st January 2009, 02:27 PM

Sorry...remind me?

We tentatively dismissed placebo as a cause because under the normal, accepted mechanism, the far more complex, expensive and accredited treatments should work better.

So if you can explain why the placebo effect works backwards to the accepted norm in this case, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Diet, exercise regime, sleep, use of cosmetics, hormonl changes, stress, weather, choices of clothing, and a huge number of other possibilities.

None of those factors have changed during the treatment as far as we know; this is supported by the return of the symptoms whenever the treatment is withdrawn.

there may be details you are innocently neglecting that could explain what you describe.

Yes, that's entirely possible. Realistically though it's not as likely as the prosaic explanation, namely that a treatment known to have this effect in others has the same effect in my wife.

it is a well documented phenomenon which fits what you are describing

It doesn't fit well at all, as I've shown above.

All I want is for you to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, your conclusion here is not the only possibility.

I already have, in my previous post. Look: "it is not the only possibility, it is only the most likely one that fits".

Matt

21st January 2009, 03:04 PM

We tentatively dismissed placebo as a cause because under the normal, accepted mechanism, the far more complex, expensive and accredited treatments should work better.

So if you can explain why the placebo effect works backwards to the accepted norm in this case, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Let me ask you why you use the phrase "accepted norm"

Norm (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Anorm&meta=) is a statistical term. Your usage implies to me that you already know that placebo effects don't always fit that norm.

Whilst is true that there's some correlation that has been shown between expense and strength of effect there are other factors too.

• The colour of a placebo pill has a discernable effect: green and
blue pills act as depressants; red pills act as stimulants...
except in Italian men, for whom blue pills act as stimulants.
• Two sugar pills have a stronger placebo effect than one.
• Capsules are more effective than tablets; and placebos need
not be in the form of pills: placebo injections, placebo radiation
and even placebo surgery can all be effective.
• Placebos are more effective when presented by health
professionals of higher status than of lower status.

Didn't you mention that CS was first recommended by her herbalist. If so what does that tell you?

niggle

21st January 2009, 03:18 PM

Your usage implies to me that you already know that placebo effects don't always fit that norm.Yes, that's right. But I'm not sure that it's unfair to seek explanations of significant deviations from expected behaviour, is it?

there are other factors too.That's true but as I said, those factors - endorsement by an "expert", complexity of treatment and so - would tend to suggest that in this case the medical treatment, which was certainly very complex and involved numbers of experts, should have yielded a much stronger placebo effect than the relatively cheap and simple treatment she's using now.

I'm genuinely struggling to see why there should be a huge reversal of the expected behaviour if this is a placebo effect. If you have any ideas, I'd be delighted to discuss them.

Didn't you mention that CS was first recommended by her herbalist. If so what does that tell you? No, not her herbalist, a herbalist. A herbalist, who I might add she's never met and whose advice she didn't seek. It was me who approached her to see if she could recommend something to help my wife sleep.

Matt

21st January 2009, 04:49 PM

I do appologise for missremembering the circumstances of the advice given. However it could be said that advice coming from her husband would be more likly to be trusted than advice coming from an impersonal medical proffessional. If there's anything positive to come from our study of the apparent sucess of pharmacologically inactive remidies then it is the discovery that the brusque paternalism of our medical professionals is counterproductive. If ear that's a lesson whihc is only too slowly being put into practice.

That alone might account for any anomoly that might need explaining. however you're being very stubborn in not acknowledging that what our burgeoning study of placebos reveals are tendancie not absolutes. There are allways single data points that confound these tendancies and even if your wife's case was one then that's still no reason to strech the plausibility of the placebo hyothesis. Furthermore these tendancies releate to changes in a single variable with all other factors being equal. In this case there are a multitude of uncontrolled factors, any one of which might enhance the placebo effect acting in support of CS over that of her previous treatments.

You're dismissal of the placebo hypothesis certainly seems premature.

Pebble

23rd January 2009, 05:22 PM

So what can we conclude? Well, I can't go any further than to say that in one case I know of, colloidal silver was definitely effective. But any normal, sensible person can figure out for themselves that human beings are not so dissimilar that it would be unlikley to work for anyone else.

This is what all the fuss is about.

Had you chosen to relate your story, and state that you believed that this agent might be of benefit in this condition, and asked if there were other similar experiences, then everyone would be content.

With that approach you are exploring options for the future, but keeping a level head.

What you do instead is first to incorrectly conclude that this stuff definately is repsonsible for your wifes stated improvement. You cannot know this, if one could make such conclusions on one case then clinical trials would be irrelevant.

Then you suggest that others should try the same, admittedly in a convoluted negative statement, but in essence if it is unlikely something work for others, then the inference is that it is likely to work. Now using semantics you can say 'I didn't say that at all, I am simply observing that there may be others for whom it also works'. However read in context there is only one logical conclusion - this is a recommendation for others with vaguely similar conditions (you have not given enough detail for a clear diagnosis) to try this stuff.

Your subsequent defence is that no one has done the studies to prove that you are wrong. I and others have shown that this is a reckless approach. You have a complete blind spot in respect of the harm you may being doing, fixating instead on the slender hope that you have discovered a miracle cure

silent_weapons4quietwars

30th April 2009, 03:53 PM

Thankyou both very much indeed. I have now bookmarked Quackwatch ... clearly I should have done so already! :smiley:

um perhaps not, you are obviously not aware that Quackwatch only works for the pharma giants looking to make billions of profits, while ridiculing natural and much more cost effective treatments, such as homeopathy (before you get started slating homeopathy, i may add that France as a nation is the largest subscriber of homeopathic medicine, and yes, it is a medicine, with Germany next in line as the largest user, i have a link i will post to prove this.)

Quackwatch, which i came across one time researching only gives a biased view in favour of pharmaceutical companies.

Homeopathy i have used mself for over 4 and half years, i was sceptical at first but my new husband's family have used it for years, and it works, you can say it is only mind over matter or mind belief but if that is the case, and once you have taken the remedy and what ails you goes away, then mind belief can be said of all medicine. :)

If you give colocynth to a baby screaming with colic and watch what happens, the colic will go, therefore it works :) Anyone who has used homeopathy knows it works, anyone who says it doesn't work has never used it and had the experience for themselves. I have used it for serious health problems the last few years and it has only let me down due to a motion sickness problem which needed physical manipulation to cure, homeopathy is never stated to be a replacement for "conventional" medicine, but i have replaced most of my usual over the counter stuff like rennies etc with homeopathic remedies which work perfectly.

So I'd give your Qwackwatch a miss if i were you.

It's all very well to stay within your own comfort mind zone and way of thinking, but you're only looking at one angle, not very informative.

:)

Pebble

30th April 2009, 03:59 PM

So I'd give your Qwackwatch a miss if i were you.

It's all very well to stay within your own comfort mind zone and way of thinking, but you're only looking at one angle, not very informative.

:)

You are in desperate need of taking your own advice, in more than homeopathic doses.

Croydon Bob

30th April 2009, 04:01 PM

Quackwatch, which i came across one time researching only gives a biased view in favour of pharmaceutical companies.

Evidence? Or was that just a stupid lie?

DrS

30th April 2009, 04:35 PM

um perhaps not, you are obviously not aware ...

So I'd give your Qwackwatch a miss if i were you.

It's all very well to stay within your own comfort mind zone and way of thinking, but you're only looking at one angle, not very informative.
:)
Thankyou for quoting me, but leave me out of your campaign, please, and I'd be grateful if you didn't make assumptions about my comfort zones.

MischiefMonkey

30th April 2009, 09:41 PM

um perhaps not, you are obviously not aware that Quackwatch only works for the pharma giants looking to make billions of profits, while ridiculing natural and much more cost effective treatments,

Evidence?

such as homeopathy (before you get started slating homeopathy, i may add that France as a nation is the largest subscriber of homeopathic medicine, and yes, it is a medicine, with Germany next in line as the largest user, i have a link i will post to prove this.)So? There are millions in this world who believe Jesus Christ was the son of god, and millions who believe he was just a prophet. From the millions of believers, they are both evidently popular views. But both beliefs can't be right.

My point being, just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is true/works. Which is why we use objective evidence.

Quackwatch, which i came across one time researching only gives a biased view in favour of pharmaceutical companies.Any evidence to support your allegation of bias?

Homeopathy i have used mself for over 4 and half years, i was sceptical at first but my new husband's family have used it for years, and it works, you can say it is only mind over matter or mind belief but if that is the case, and once you have taken the remedy and what ails you goes away, then mind belief can be said of all medicine. :)Not sure you have a complete understanding of the placebo effect, nor randomised double blind clinical trials.

If you give colocynth to a baby screaming with colic and watch what happens, the colic will go, therefore it works :) How is the colocynth administered? Could the administration process affect the colic?

How do rule out the colic passing by itself. As it tends to do.

Anyone who has used homeopathy knows it works, anyone who says it doesn't work has never used it and had the experience for themselves.
Not true.

I have used it for serious health problems the last few years and it has only let me down due to a motion sickness problem which needed physical manipulation to cure, homeopathy is never stated to be a replacement for "conventional" medicine, but i have replaced most of my usual over the counter stuff like rennies etc with homeopathic remedies which work perfectly.Actually, homeopathy is often touted as a replacement for conventional medicine. Homeopaths have suggested taking a homeopathic product to prevent malaria instead of conventional medicine. In the pet world, homeopaths often suggest not vaxinating dogs and giving them homeopathic nosodes instead.

If homeopathy was restricted to the old bit of indigestion or travel sickness, I wouldn't care so much.

So I'd give your Qwackwatch a miss if i were you.

It's all very well to stay within your own comfort mind zone and way of thinking, but you're only looking at one angle, not very informative.

:)I like the 'look at the evidence' comfort zone thank-you. You know where you are with good, hard evidence.

In my comfort zone, I have an effective and quick cure for indigestion. My lovely paracetamol is currently staving off some nasty cold symptoms. I can visit foriegn climes without fear of motion sickness or maleria. I and my family need not fear a number of unpleasant and/or dangerous diseases thanks to the vaccinations your average homeopath so hates, likewise my dogs can swim in stagnant water without me fearing lepto. They can also eat snail without the fear of heartworm thanks to big pharma creating wormers, which also protects us from nasty worms that could make us blind.

I could go on and on, but I suspect you are the closed minded one, in your comfort zone not willing to objectively look at the evidence. I'm gladdened that you don't totally eshew all conventional treatment, but if homeopathy is so right, Big Pharma so evil and Quackwatch so biased I do wonder why you need or trust conventional medicine.

JJM

2nd May 2009, 05:45 AM

... you are obviously not aware that Quackwatch only works for the pharma giants looking to make billions of profits ...

Quackwatch, which i came across one time researching only gives a biased view in favour of pharmaceutical companies.You don't know that herbs make billions for manufacturers who don't have to spend much to produce them? Do quack promoters give unbiased accounts?

Homeopathy i have used mself ...I feel an anecdote coming on.

Mojo

2nd May 2009, 04:10 PM

(before you get started slating homeopathy, i may add that France as a nation is the largest subscriber of homeopathic medicine, and yes, it is a medicine, with Germany next in line as the largest user, i have a link i will post to prove this.)

That's a fine non-sequitur you have there.

Mojo

2nd May 2009, 04:13 PM

So? There are millions in this world who believe Jesus Christ was the son of god, and millions who believe he was just a prophet. From the millions of believers, they are both evidently popular views. But both beliefs can't be right.

Never mind that: if there were two users of homoeopathy in France and only one in Germany, silent_weapons4quietwars's statement could still be true.

Enquirer

3rd May 2009, 04:25 PM

Isn't the problem here that for CS, unlike homeopathy, there just don't seem to be any clinical trials? The known topical effects surely justify further study into its use internally?

Pebble

3rd May 2009, 06:59 PM

Isn't the problem here that for CS, unlike homeopathy, there just don't seem to be any clinical trials? The known topical effects surely justify further study into its use internally?

So given the known topical effects of dettol, hydrogen peroxide etc we should conduct internal use trials?

Look at the track record of heavy metals - lead, gold, arsenic, mercury and others have been used internally. In all the above cases the toxicity has eventually been shown to exceed the benefits. Only bismuth survives, even there there are better alternatives (and its effects are in reality 'topical' in the stomach).

So if some one wanted to do some decent pharmacodynamic studies in animals, in particular in respect of long-term toxicity one could revisit the potential role in patients. But the track record of similar agents suggest that this is likely to disappoint,

Enquirer

4th May 2009, 06:14 PM

So given the known topical effects of dettol, hydrogen peroxide etc we should conduct internal use trials?
Is anyone making claims that their internal use is beneficial?

Look at the track record of heavy metals - lead, gold, arsenic, mercury and others have been used internally. In all the above cases the toxicity has eventually been shown to exceed the benefits. Only bismuth survives, even there there are better alternatives (and its effects are in reality 'topical' in the stomach).
Fair point, still the lack of studies into the effects of CS leaves an exploitable gap to the unscrupulous. It's perfectly reasonable for science to plug these gaps through doing studies that show no effect. That's basically what happened with homeopathy.

So if some one wanted to do some decent pharmacodynamic studies in animals, in particular in respect of long-term toxicity one could revisit the potential role in patients. But the track record of similar agents suggest that this is likely to disappoint,
I don't think it would be a disappointing result if such studies clearly demonstrated toxicity. Surely it would then be banned and a lot of people would be spared harm. That's a good result from where I'm standing.

Trinoc

4th May 2009, 06:29 PM

Is anyone making claims that their internal use is beneficial?
Actually, I know someone who was sold a drink consisting mostly of water, but with some hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C, as a treatment for prostate cancer!

Not only that, but he was told it was "special" hydrogen peroxide and "special" vitamin C which he had to buy from the practitioner (a process which frequently required international travel!) ... he couldn't just buy the cheap ingredients from a chemist and mix them up himself.

Add to that the fact that H2O2 decomposes releasing oxygen almost immediately on contact with organic material, so the little bit that made it to the stomach would immediately produce water plus an oxygen burp. I can't see how any of it could ever reach the prostate. And of course the fact that vitamin C is an antioxidant whose main function (in this respect) is to get rid of peroxide radicals.

Pebble

4th May 2009, 07:31 PM

I don't think it would be a disappointing result if such studies clearly demonstrated toxicity. Surely it would then be banned and a lot of people would be spared harm. That's a good result from where I'm standing.

Ever tried scooping up mercury with a fork?

Prove that an agent is toxic in animals, they would claim model specificity, prove that one form in one dose is toxic in humans, then other forms or other doses would be claimed as safe, if banned in one country the agent would still be promoted in countries where legislation is either not enacted or enforced etc etc. Bringing a drug to market costs millions, proving something is ineffective costs more (superiority to placebo being easier to demonstrate than equivalence) and can be achieved only one condition and one dose at a time, thus only if toxicity is demonstrated are further investigations abandoned early, not proving that the agent is ineffective just that the further investment was not justified.

This is not defeatism, merely reality. Look at the vitamin story, thoroughly disproven yet still widely promoted and believed, even those that have been shown to be toxic.

Enquirer

4th May 2009, 07:54 PM

Pebble

4th May 2009, 11:27 PM

Pebble, sure there will always be those people but on any given issue there are also waverers and fence-sitters. I really believe that good science changes opinions and behaviour, smoking being an example. It's anecdotal of course but I have also spoken to a few people lately who have turned away from homeopathy as the weight of evidence that it is hokum becomes too much to bear.

Agree with principle. Setting out to disprove all the nonsense in the world is laudable, but the ingenuity of idiots should not be underestimated.

The role of scientific methodology is mainly to demonstrate what works, thus incrementally improving our theories. Older theories generally become obsolete rather than being disproven.

acengineer4u

13th May 2009, 11:21 AM

Hi All

I know I am entering this conversation late, but I think I can shed some light. Firstly, not all colloidal silvers are equal. You would not drink a glass of sea water and say that ALL water is bad.

The condition where people turn grey or blue is called argyria. It is caused by relatively large silver particles being trapped under the skin, which react with sunlight and change colour. Modern colloidal silvers use tiny nano particles which pass through the body without becoming stuck, so argyria is prevented. Although it can be quite dramatic in appearence, argyria is rare and usually associated with home made colloidal silver using a generator and methods rejected by reputable manufacturers.

The anti bacterial properties of silver have been known since ancient Greek and Roman times when they found that fluids (like milk and wine) would not turn sour as quickly if stored in a silver urn. Many modern studies have backed this up, so it is undisputable scientific fact.

That said, quality of manufacturing varies and some manufacturers will make generic quotes like "silver can kill over 600 pathogens". Some colloidal silvers can, but they don't say that THEIR colloidal silver can kill 600 pathogens, so you need to research.

The silver has an ionic charge which rips electrons from the pathogen cell membrane, thus rupturing and killing it. Friendly bacteria tend to have thicker membranes which are electrically nuetral, so their membranes are not affected by this ionic action, hence pathogens are more readilly targeted by the silver than friendly bacteria.

If you are interested in using colloidal silver then do your homework. Don't use a home generater, find one that uses nano particles and one that offers specific studies for its own product rather than generic "silver can . . . " quotes.

I can't add URL's yet, so to find out more, Google "advanced silver solution".

Charlie

Has anyone noticed that when there is anything to be sold people are scandalous and debunk the whole lot....... I made a home made colloidal genenerator and it has cleared up my dermatitus. I used to use cream to controll the condition for over 8 years and everytime I gave it a break for 3-4 days I would develop a sore rash all over my face. It can't be explained just by coincidence that the time I start using colloidal silver to controll it it just so happens to clear up. Surely if my home made colloidal silver was inferior in any way in the size of the nano particles of silver then surely the dermatitus would be breaking out again.

I can understand someone being sceptical because of the language being used to sell the product especialy with all these non scientific outlandish claims but you can be sure that colloidal silver clears up dermatitus.

I even tried to explain to my doctor what I had used to clear it up and he wasn't interested in hearing me out so I am now going to change my doctor because if I was a doctor I'd be interested to hear off one of my patients as to how they cleared up a condition that my diagnosis failed to do.......

That just makes me think that Doctors have a vested interest in promoting the big pharma companies because they go hand in hand. What would the big pharma companies do if doctors stopped prescribing there brand of medication?

Croydon Bob

13th May 2009, 11:50 AM

It can't be explained just by coincidence

Yes it can. But more likely is that you are misrepresenting the facts.

Surely if my home made colloidal silver was inferior in any way in the size of the nano particles of silver then surely the dermatitus would be breaking out again.

You obviously don't know what nanoparticles are. Or have a clue at all about anything you've said.

but you can be sure that colloidal silver clears up dermatitus.

No. I think this thread has already established that it doesn't. Certainly not safely.

so I am now going to change my doctor because if I was a doctor I'd be interested to hear off one of my patients as to how they cleared up a condition that my diagnosis failed to do.......

If I was your doctor I'd be delighted to see the back of you.

DrS

13th May 2009, 02:18 PM

But taking too much will turn your skin blue. Even if it were by chance to be responsible for curing your skin complaint, on balance, I think I should prefer dematitis ... :undecided:

Croydon Bob

13th May 2009, 02:44 PM

But taking too much will turn your skin blue. Even if it were by chance to be responsible for curing your skin complaint, on balance, I think I should prefer dematitis ...

You could paint a circle on your forehead and pretend you were Dr Manhattan from Watchmen?

DrS

13th May 2009, 03:01 PM

Had to google that, but now I have ... ;D

Trinoc

13th May 2009, 03:43 PM

I don't see anywhere that the poster says the colloidal silver was taken internally. As a topical antiseptic it may well work against dermatitis.

The reaction I see here rather bears out the poster's first point ... we tend to condemn something absolutely just because it is sometimes promoted in invalid ways. Silver did not magically stop being an antiseptic the day the first alternative practitioner claimed it could have a benefit by being taken internally.

Matt

13th May 2009, 10:19 PM

Trinoc

13th May 2009, 10:48 PM

IANAD and all that but when did dermatitus become a bacterial infection?
As far as I know, dermatitis simply means "inflamed skin". It could have a wide range of causes, probably including bacterial infection. Also, even if it is not the primary cause, inflammation can encourage bacterial infection, and keeping that down should give the body's natural defences a better chance of fixing the actual cause.

Pebble

13th May 2009, 11:21 PM

As far as I know, dermatitis simply means "inflamed skin". It could have a wide range of causes, probably including bacterial infection. Also, even if it is not the primary cause, inflammation can encourage bacterial infection, and keeping that down should give the body's natural defences a better chance of fixing the actual cause.

Atopic dermatitis, seborrhoeic dermatitis, contact dermatitis etc. The issue is we have no idea what is being discussed, or the context - perhaps HIV related dermatitis.
Second all dermatoses wax and wane, so confirmation bias may be at work.

Finally, if topical disinfection had a significant role in the management of any particular form of dermatistis, this would already be well known.

Thus so called 'common sense' based speculation predicated on the name used for the condition is not good science or skepticism.

MischiefMonkey

13th May 2009, 11:35 PM

As far as I know, dermatitis simply means "inflamed skin". It could have a wide range of causes, probably including bacterial infection. Also, even if it is not the primary cause, inflammation can encourage bacterial infection, and keeping that down should give the body's natural defences a better chance of fixing the actual cause.

Having lived though excema, acne and dog dermatitis, the 'body' doesn't 'fix' the actual cause unless (some) childhood excema or teenage hormones. Figuring out the cause and treating/avoiding that fixes dermititis - if you can.

Indeed, scratching at a dermatitis inflammation can introduce a bacterial infection - I have the vet bills to prove this. But bacteria isn't the root cause of dermatitis. Hormones, genetics, allergies, 'unknown' and other illnesses can cause it, but not bacteria.

So why would an antibacterial cure a condition not caused by bacteria?

skbuncks

14th May 2009, 01:14 PM

Having lived though excema, acne and dog dermatitis, the 'body' doesn't 'fix' the actual cause unless (some) childhood excema or teenage hormones. Figuring out the cause and treating/avoiding that fixes dermititis - if you can.

Indeed, scratching at a dermatitis inflammation can introduce a bacterial infection - I have the vet bills to prove this. But bacteria isn't the root cause of dermatitis. Hormones, genetics, allergies, 'unknown' and other illnesses can cause it, but not bacteria.

So why would an antibacterial cure a condition not caused by bacteria?

So, your not human then?

skb

MischiefMonkey

14th May 2009, 03:17 PM

So, your not human then?

skb

LOL, I should have been clearer - not all medical conditions were my own;)

Mojo

14th May 2009, 07:11 PM

Second all dermatoses wax and wane, so confirmation bias may be at work.

This makes them ideal for clinical trials of CAM, for example:

http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/abstract/164/12/364

;)

MischiefMonkey

14th May 2009, 07:57 PM

This makes them ideal for clinical trials of CAM, for example:

http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/abstract/164/12/364

;)

Not sure about humans, but it can also be seasonal in dogs. That trial doesn't seem worth the effort of conducting it. A two month period? 20 dogs? Don't make me laugh.

Atopic Dermatitis in dogs can be caused by a variety of allergies - pollens, fleas, foods, household chemicals. Hormones, stress and general condition can affect it. There are so many possible variables involved, 20 dogs is a ridiculously small number to study and 2 months a ridiculously short time.

My dog is having a good phase - she hasn't had an outbreak a couple of months, no serious outbreak in a about 9/10 months. Had she been on that trial 9 months ago, she'd be a 'win' for homeopathy. Had I given her Colloidal Silver, I could have thanked that. Demonstrably, it wouldn't have been true.

lost thought

16th May 2009, 10:56 AM

Not sure about humans, but it can also be seasonal in dogs. That trial doesn't seem worth the effort of conducting it. A two month period? 20 dogs? Don't make me laugh.

Atopic Dermatitis in dogs can be caused by a variety of allergies - pollens, fleas, foods, household chemicals. Hormones, stress and general condition can affect it. There are so many possible variables involved, 20 dogs is a ridiculously small number to study and 2 months a ridiculously short time.

My dog is having a good phase - she hasn't had an outbreak a couple of months, no serious outbreak in a about 9/10 months. Had she been on that trial 9 months ago, she'd be a 'win' for homeopathy. Had I given her Colloidal Silver, I could have thanked that. Demonstrably, it wouldn't have been true.

That would have been good I've never seen a blue dog, except in winter.>:D

pixieone

2nd June 2009, 12:44 PM

Graham Lappin

15th June 2009, 02:51 AM

I am a USA scientist working with nano particals, especial sliver and copper, for industrial inks. We are finding severe toxicology problems in workers who are only exposed to nano silver let alone be stupid enough to drink the uncontroled solutions sold. do not belive any thing you read about how good it is , or how small particals pass through, all hog wash. the silver nano particals cause liver an DNA damage. If you self doctor you have a idiot for a client.

This thread is still going strong I see, although charliedw has long disappeared from the argument.

I am genuinely interested in what you say and would like to know how the link has been made between cause (metallic nanoparticles) and the effects (toxicity in the workers). Working in conditions of environmental exposure, it is notoriously difficult to make the link. I worked at one time trying to do just this with the occupational exposure of certain pesticides. Could you be a little more precise about the hepatotoxicity and, particularly, what DNA damage is occurring?

I am also a scientist working (at least for a little while) in the USA. I realise the reason for your post was to dissuade others from risking self medication, but what you have to say is very interesting.

Graham Lappin

15th June 2009, 03:02 AM

Looking back on recent posts in this (somewhat vintage) thread it does occur to me that so much of the woo (medical woo in this case) stands alone in its philosophy. Real science is, on the other hand, completely joined up. For example, you can't have an explanation for some biological effect that defies the laws of physics. Following this logic therefore, perhaps homeopathic doses of colloidal silver might be worth a try - at least it couldn't do any harm I suppose?

Pebble

15th June 2009, 07:08 AM

....so much of the woo (medical woo in this case) stands alone in its philosophy....

Care to expand - some specific examples would help provide a testing ground for this statement.

Graham Lappin

15th June 2009, 11:13 AM

Care to expand - some specific examples would help provide a testing ground for this statement.

Not well explained I admit. Posting last thing at night (and now first thing in the morning) does not necessarily lead to the most coherent of statements. I am away for a few days at a conference and so I'll get back with some deeper thoughts a bit later.

Graham Lappin

16th June 2009, 03:05 AM

Not well explained I admit. Posting last thing at night (and now first thing in the morning) does not necessarily lead to the most coherent of statements. I am away for a few days at a conference and so I'll get back with some deeper thoughts a bit later.

Perhaps some of this will seem obvious but never mind, here we go. Also please bear in mind, fellow skeptics that I have typed this out on a Blackberry, whilst travelling to what has turned out to be a pretty poor conference.

We humans like to organise and classify things, it's just the way our minds work (assuming everyone reading this post is indeed human). Science is divided into a series of disciplines - physics, biology, chemistry, geology - etc. Then into sub-disciplines, for example physics into mechanics, particle, quantum - etc. The fact that we divide things up in this way to suit our own thinking should not lead us to a discontinious approach to science. There is really a continuum, with no distinct differentiating line between one discipline and the next.

For example take the theory of evolution (which of course is only a theory). I choose this because direct experimental evidence is difficult to gather in the human time-frame (not impossible but just difficult).

Darwin's theory works and Lamark's does not because the molecular biologists can show that the mechanism of information flow is from the gene to the environment, not the other way round. Giraffes don't have long necks because they stretched up to the tops of the trees and their stretched neck got into the genome. There are however mechanisms that allow the genetic trait of a long neck to manifest itslef by the survival of those giraffes that are able to reach the higher branches. Molecular biology and genetics are therefore entirely compatible with Darwin's theory.

Darwin's theory would be in trouble (and indeed was at one time) if there was insufficient geological time for it to occur. Geologists however can show that the earth is some 4.2 billion years old. Then the radiochemists can show that the earths radioactivity keeps the core molten and so we have techtonic plates and continental drift, all consistent with the isolation of species over millions of years. And the list goes on.

So for a scientific theory to have any validity, it all has to be joined up, irrespective of how humans decide to classify scientific disciplines. If something does not fit, then that becomes interesting and needs enquiry.

That's the beauty of science (at least I find it that way), it is complex and intermingled but so often I can ask "how does that work" and the physicist will explain it in their way, the chemist in theirs and the biologist in theirs, but it all joins together in an elegant interwoven single entity.

To me therefore, my first test of woo versus science is not to ask where is the experimental evidence to support the proposition but I ask how the propession fits into the interwoven fabric we call science. I had not come across colloidal silver before it turned up on this thread but immediately the proposition was made that the membranes of "bad" bacteria were more susceptible than "good" bacteria, all the alarm bells went off. After this first parse came an examination of the evidence, which then justified the ringing of the bells.

Much of the woo demands that we have to throw away all the scientific text books and come up with some new interwoven Universe. Some of the woo is pernicious (colloidal silver being one) as at first glance, particularly to the untrained eye, it seems it might fit and have some validity. However, just plagiarising the language of science is no stamp of true authority.

Probably nothing here that is revolutionary but an explanation was requested and it might be food for the little grey cells. (By grey cells, I mean those in the brain, not terrorist cells of aliens). Anyway it was a pleasant distraction from a conference that should have become extinct a long time ago!

Pebble

16th June 2009, 07:30 AM

Graham Lappin

16th June 2009, 02:34 PM

Bunny,

Agree that science has 'evolved' to the point that a logical thread should support new insights. The problem in medicine anyway is that in the past many discoveries were through serendipity. How penicillin, bismuth, morphine etc were worked out after we knew they worked. For sure these days, we find the pathway, explore the consequences of up or down regulation and design molecules that suitable modify any given pathway.

The Achille's heel of a scientific argument for rejecting that which makes no sense, is that in the past really huge advances leading to complete revision of the standard theories have been led by inconsistency between our theoretical framework and observed outcomes. It follows that if one only follows current logic you limit your inquiries to findings that will support what is currently imagined as plausible.

The woomonger's exploit this to an irrational degree, but it does mean that science must remain humble enough to accept when new data conflicts with current theories, but cautious enough to ensure that any new theories must better explain all observations, not just one set of otherwise incongrous findings. An example of doing this correctly is genetics - where purely statistical associations are identified, and one then explores why the findings might make sense.

This is indeed provoking some thought. Firstly I would say that the present is only a little different to the past in that a lot of our current and developing medicines are not actually fully understood in terms of mechanism. We are still finding out stuff about paracetamol for example (I know because I am involved in that myself). (The newer generation therapeutic proteins may be changing this as the receptor and targets are better understood but there are still underlining complexities that have yet to be elucidated).

It is your statement that "....only follows current logic you limit your inquiries to findings that will support what is currently imagined as plausible" that intrigues me the most. This should be a lesson to all those that don't follow the skeptical way. Here is one skeptic saying to another skeptic, we don't know it all and keep an open mind (although not open in that it's OK to believe everything). Very well put Pebble, might I say.

It was probably more the inadequacy of my expression than my thoughts that gave the impression I was not already in complete agreement with you. The point I was making was that when things don't join up, then the alarm bells ring. They are only alarm bells and subsequent evidence may show that they were indeed a false alarm. In my experience, that is not a bad starting point.

seanblack60

14th August 2009, 07:10 PM

Croydon Bob

14th August 2009, 08:11 PM

I make my own silver with a 12volt powerpack and 2 99.9999 Silver ingots. Now i use tap water as it is easier to make and quick. If i feel a cold of whatever coming on i make up a batch and i drink 2 small glasses a day and gargle with it twice a day, thing is folks i have not had a cold or anything for the past 2 years.

Hi Sean. I gargle with my own urine. I haven't been ill for 30 years and I'm actually getting younger now. Give me your address and I'll post you some. Everything I've said is as true as your post.

MischiefMonkey

14th August 2009, 11:12 PM

Ok new here so go easy guys.

My own personal experience with Silver.

Read all the articles on the net and seen the Youtube video's. I make my own silver with a 12volt powerpack and 2 99.9999 Silver ingots. Now i use tap water as it is easier to make and quick. If i feel a cold of whatever coming on i make up a batch and i drink 2 small glasses a day and gargle with it twice a day, thing is folks i have not had a cold or anything for the past 2 years. Now i work in a large office where people are off sick all the time with this and that. i am in Scotland so it's cold and wet most of the time here and yet no colds or flu for me, as i said if i feel them comming on i do my routine and gone. Now i believe it works but i believe caution should be used. Too much of a good thing is always bad.

Sean.....

My son has only had one cold in his entire seven year life. We (his parents) get a cold, he has a sniff - as in 'a cold coming on' - but never a full blown cold. I had full blown influenza three years ago

He gargles neither colloidal silver (nor urine;D).

Perhaps he, and you, just have a good immune system. Or a good, balanced diet. Or practices good hand hygiene. Or are just lucky. Or maybe magic Pixies protect the both of you.

This is the point of clinical trials. A single 'sample' could be affected by so many different variables that it is meaningless. Even a small sample - see the homeopathy trial with 20 dogs above - can't reach firm conclusions. You need a large group receiving 'treatment' and an equally large control group not receiving treatment to compare to.

Even then, there are 'biases' at play. The Placebo effect is the obvious one - and one that shouldn't be underestimated. But there are also other biases that pertain to the people running the trial, selection into each group and the expectations of those conducting the trial. These need to be eliminated.

Thus a randomised double blind trial with a significant number of participants is the only way to show efficacy (or not).

But even if efficacy was shown, is there any point to colloidal silver as a cold preventative when paracetomol - costing less than a tube of Smarties for two packs from ASDA - and a tub of Vic's vapour rub relieve the symptoms with no ill effect?

A lot simpler (and cheaper) than messing with silver ingots and 12 volt batteries (and a lot more palatable than urine;D)