PDA

View Full Version : Bad Medicine...Part 2



Pages : [1] 2 3

tuffel999
2003-Nov-21, 05:10 AM
So the thread Bad Medicine got locked in Bad Astronomy the book and the BA sugested the discussion be brought here. I wasn't in on the thread I missed it(but I was interested in the topic) but here is a new chance for people who are interested. I am not beskeptical as I work in research but I have some knowledge that may be helpful. So if anyone is interested post away........

Glom
2003-Nov-21, 01:10 PM
Well I don't know much about the topic. But I say that homeopathy does have some medicinal value. Yes. It is nothing but water and we all know water is very good for you when you're feeling under the weather.

captain swoop
2003-Nov-21, 01:39 PM
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
http://www.homeowatch.org/

Glom
2003-Nov-21, 01:45 PM
I have a question. Homepathic proponents claim that homeopathic remedies work because the work contains a "memory" of the chemical that was in it prior to dilution. But, why does that make it better than the chemical itself? If an echo of the drug is potent enough to do the trick, surely using the drug itself would be even better.

gethen
2003-Nov-21, 01:53 PM
I have a question. Homepathic proponents claim that homeopathic remedies work because the work contains a "memory" of the chemical that was in it prior to dilution. But, why does that make it better than the chemical itself? If an echo of the drug is potent enough to do the trick, surely using the drug itself would be even better.

Except that, as I understand it, there are other considerations:

-The drug may be poisonous in larger concentration.
-The more you can dilute the drug, the less the cost to the supplier.
-If you can convince people that the "memory" of the drug in the water is
enough to do the trick, you can also probably convince them that you can
send that "memory" through your computer, as has already been done.

Betenoire
2003-Nov-21, 02:29 PM
Just give 'em a sugar pill.

bbtuna
2003-Nov-21, 03:16 PM
I attended a talk on Voodoo science at my school and one of the things that was mentioned was homeopathic medicine. The speaker talked about the dilutions used in some of the "medicines." The supposed cure for diaper rash used poison ivy extracts that were extremely diluted. He gave a great comparision. If Julius Ceaser peed in the Ocean, today the concentration would be the same as that medicine. He also said somthing about another cure. He worked out the dilution and I can't remember the numbers, but he said it was one part in a number that is greater than all the particles in the known universe. Sure sounds like a cure to me.

tuffel999
2003-Nov-21, 03:19 PM
The placebo affect is an interesting thing. Every drug that Iam aware of goes through a placebo test because the ability of the body ot heal itself is quite extraordinary. Think of all of the damage the body can repair on its own......broken bones, cuts, contusions, and diseases. The immune system alone has the ability to morph and change its responses in almost unlimited ways. Once you tell a person they are taking something to help that is quite often enough to make them feel better, why do doctors give antibiotics for clearly viral infection? Often I have heard it said to prevent oportunistic infection but IMO it ALSO has to do with making the person feel better by giving them the magic pill they wanted when they came in the office. Most viral infections can't be successfully treated by a doctor (but by all means go to the doctor) but if the person thinks they are getting something for it they go home feeling better and they convince themselves that they are healing. Once the immune system finally clears the virus they are healed and they think wow that pill really helped.

The whole idea of memory of chemicals is odd to me to say the least.

-The drug may be poisonous in larger concentration.

Most of what is in many pills that are prescribed is simply filler material and/or chemicals to aid the function of the drug with out it being the actual active ingredient, so they already are in 'low' concentration relative to what you think you are taking.

-The more you can dilute the drug, the less the cost to the supplier.

Economic benefit to the manufacturer not patient.

-If you can convince people that the "memory" of the drug in the water is
enough to do the trick

Ummmmm.....yeah. Could the memory be trace amounts left over? But in general I don't buy the memory idea. Your immune system maintains a 'memory' because it has dedicated cells that keep the ability to recognize a pathogen or foreign particle. These cells are relatively long lived, immunizations anyone, so they stay with you as a type of memory. I am unaware of anything that points to water having the same capabilities.

Now this is not to discount the usefulness of 'natural' remedies. Many may contain useful compounds (and many do I am sure) and many chemicals were original found in nature, asprin is an example willow bark I think, but you have to be careful since they may be a group of chemicals included in the natural substance other than the one active ingredient that is helpful. There could be less than benefical chemicals in that group. so just be awre.

Eta C
2003-Nov-21, 04:08 PM
An interesting note on aspirin and willow bark. It is true that the salicylic acid found in the bark is an effective pain reliever, fever reducer and anti-inflammatory. It's also an extremely strong acid that tends to do bad things to the stomach. It wasn't until the Bayer company modified it to become acetylsalicylic acid (a.k.a. aspirin) that the drug became widely used. The natural version, while effective, was not useable. The "artificial" one retained the effectiveness and increased the utility.

(interesting side note. Aspirin is originally the brand name Bayer develeoped for acetylsalicylic acid. It became the generic name over the years. Bayer also introduced another new drug that year. It was an opium derivitive to which they gave the brand name "Heroin". This also became a generic name, albeit with more sinister consequences.)

Finally, to quote the joke I used in the earlier thread.

Did you hear the one about the homeopath who died of an overdose after drinking distilled water?

kylenano
2003-Nov-21, 06:33 PM
There are two points that niggle me about homeopathic remedies. Firstly, exactly what is being dissolved? There's no such thing as an onion molecule. Secondly, the remedy is 'potentised' (if I've got the correct term!) by shaking it, supposedly to reinforce the effect. If you drop a magnet, you usually decrease the magnetism.

Carolyn

Glom
2003-Nov-21, 06:58 PM
The shaking it tends to be accompanied by the New Age type energy.

zebo-the-fat
2003-Nov-21, 07:12 PM
The shaking it tends to be accompanied by the New Age type energy.

Can you measure this energy, how many watts?

Glom
2003-Nov-21, 07:19 PM
Can you measure this energy, how many watts?

Who cares? It's pseudoscientific bart. Besides, energy is measured in joules.

mike alexander
2003-Nov-21, 09:53 PM
An interesting point about aspirin and the other nonsteroidal antiinflammatories (NSAIDs, for obvious reasons) is that they act by inhibiting the action of the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes on arachidonic acid, interrupting prostaglandin synthesis.

Aspirin inactivates the COX by transacetylation, changing the mloecular structure; the others more or less are competitive inhibitors, covering up the enzyme active site.

So? The point is that the enzyme active site is shaped like a long, hydrophobic tunnel where the arachidonic acid (a long chain, hydrophobic acid) slides in for the modification to take place. Water, being extremely hydrophilic (what else) can't penetrate the tunnel. So even if the water had a 'memory' it wouldn't do much good, because it couldn't get to the site where the memory would do anything. And of course, since water can't acetylate anything (lacking an acetate group) a homeopathic solution of aspirin could not in principle do what the aspirin itself does.

Homeopathy is nonsense.

Glom
2003-Nov-21, 09:59 PM
Ooh! Juicy argument!

sarongsong
2003-Nov-22, 06:04 AM
...The whole idea of memory of chemicals is odd to me to say the least..."
Interesting photos under "Water Crystals" here:
http://www.hado.net/

Humphrey
2003-Nov-22, 08:06 AM
someone should pm the girl in the other bad medicine thread. she should know about this.

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-22, 03:24 PM
So, according to homeopathy, if I dilute potassium cyanide to a 30C dilution (or whatever dilution it is homeopaths use) the water will 'remember' the essence of the cyanide and I'll die? :-? :wink:

Glom
2003-Nov-22, 03:34 PM
So, according to homeopathy, if I dilute potassium cyanide to a 30C dilution (or whatever dilution it is homeopaths use) the water will 'remember' the essence of the cyanide and I'll die? :-? :wink:

That's pretty much it. Which means we're all screwed because who knows what toxic chemicals have been dumped into the rivers that eventually end up flowing through our taps.

Eroica
2003-Nov-22, 05:38 PM
So, according to homeopathy, if I dilute potassium cyanide to a 30C dilution (or whatever dilution it is homeopaths use) the water will 'remember' the essence of the cyanide and I'll die? :-? :wink:
[-X Only if you remember to shake VIGOROUSLY after every dilution. Otherwise it won't work!

Eroica
2003-Nov-22, 05:51 PM
On the locked thread, someone mentioned the BBC Horizon programme in which homeopathy was put to the James Randi challenge - and failed. Two things interested me about that program. Firstly, the BBC took the challenge because two independent scientists (an Italian, I think, and some woman at Queen's College Belfast) had come up with some surprising results which seemed to confirm that the diluted water did retain a "memory" of the solute. Secondly, after the test was completed and Randi's million dollars were safe, Randi was asked for his opinions on the whole controversy. To my surprise, he was not at all dismissive of homeopathy. He seemed to think that there might be something in the results the two scientists got that was worth investigating further.I would be interested in knowing if those two scientists' experiments have ever been repeated, confirmed, explained away...? Or is this just another "cold fusion" thing?

Incidentally, in the course of the programme a vet testified that homeopathic treatments work on the horses he treats, which at the very least raises questions about homeopathic successes being merely due to the placebo effect.

Jpax2003
2003-Nov-22, 05:53 PM
Finally, to quote the joke I used in the earlier thread.

Did you hear the one about the homeopath who died of an overdose after drinking distilled water?

Not sure that joke would go over well in Dallas this week. Yet another hazing incident involving "Water Intoxication" or "Water Overdose" AKA Hyponatremia. At least this guy's only in a coma, another pledge in Pittsburg died earlier this year. Turns out that drinking too much water in a short period of time (e.g. 3 quarts at a sitting) can reduce the sodium in the blood and cause siezures.

WebMD http://my.webmd.com/content/article/36/1676_50497.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

More info on Dallas water hazing incident. http://home.abc28.com/Global/story.asp?S=1528017

More info on Pittsburg student who died earlier this year. http://www.pressrepublican.com/Archive/2003/05_2003/050120031c.htm

Glom
2003-Nov-22, 05:54 PM
I watched the webchat with Randi immediately after the programme. Someone asked him about what he thought of the horses and Randi said that whether a horse is getting better or not is down to the opinion of the owner, who believes it will work.

I would like to reiterate that water is always a good medicine anyway, so homeopathic remedies may have healing value, but not for the reasons the homeopaths say. Furthermore, the horses would have gotten better anyway.

Until some uses a homeopathic drug to cure cancer or AIDS, the value of this water memory will always be in doubt. I have doubts about some mainstream drugs.

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-23, 06:51 PM
[-X Only if you remember to shake VIGOROUSLY after every dilution. Otherwise it won't work!

:lol: As soon as I read that I thought of James Bond and martinis! Maybe James was drinking water with 'alcohol memory'. :lol:

planethollywood
2003-Nov-24, 12:14 AM
a little off topic but this is really annoying me everytime i see it.

Alot of chemists (pharmacy) are now offering natropath and homeopath services from their stores. i think great , all this does is make these people seem legitimate.

i can only hope that they miss treat someone and get sued. best way to end this practice. But then i think most of the medicines they have are so weak they can hardly have any effect good are bad.

but even taken vitamines i see only become expensive urine. if you have a normal diet what good is in taking vitamines?

tuffel999
2003-Nov-24, 02:28 AM
None so long as you eat a healthy balanced diet.......but how many people actually do that?

Charlie in Dayton
2003-Nov-24, 03:34 AM
In the spirit of homeopathy, water memory, and my recently diagnosed diabetes, I am introducing a new product:

Genuine Miami Valley Maple Syrup, from my kidneys to your pancakes, direct with love...

Only $13.95 for a pint bottle. Step right up, line forms on the right, cash, credit cards, money orders only please... 8-[

Hey, makes as much sense as the rest of it, dunnit?

sarongsong
2003-Nov-24, 03:46 AM
my recently diagnosed diabetes
Preumably from a "regular" doctor---what, if anything, was prescribed?

mike alexander
2003-Nov-24, 05:00 AM
Taking a vitamin supplement is not a bad thing per se. The whole question of a 'balanced diet' can be a complex one (one could live in an area where there is a low level of background iodine, leading to increased possibilities of goiter, for example. Thus, iodized salt). As long as you don't overdo the fat-soluble vitamins it probably won't hurt and may help somewhat. Lots of people go through life with very unbalanced diets.

As for prescription pharmaceuticals, the two biggest problems are inappropriate prescribing (drug not properly matched to disorder, unwanted drug interactions) on the part of physicians, and inappropriate dosing on the part of the patient (not completing a course in antibiotics, for example). A minor (only in terms of numbers, not necessarily severity) problem is idiosyncratic reactions by a pateint to a particular drug. Rare reactions (say at the 1:10,000 or smaller level) may be almost impossible to ferret out before the drug goes into widespread use.

I would add that with increasing clinical and analytical sophistication it is more and more likely that these rare reactions will be detected earlier (individual phenotyping, metabolomics).

swansont
2003-Nov-24, 12:19 PM
So, according to homeopathy, if I dilute potassium cyanide to a 30C dilution (or whatever dilution it is homeopaths use) the water will 'remember' the essence of the cyanide and I'll die? :-? :wink:

That's pretty much it. Which means we're all screwed because who knows what toxic chemicals have been dumped into the rivers that eventually end up flowing through our taps.

I am NOT endorsing homeopathy, but...

You're forgetting the premise that "like cures like"

So diluting potassium cyanide should cure you of the poisoning, were homeopathy correct. It may even purport to make you immune to the possibility of poisoning.

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-24, 12:29 PM
So diluting potassium cyanide should cure you of the poisoning, were homeopathy correct.

Now there's a clinical trial I wouldn't want to be a part of. :o


It may even purport to make you immune to the possibility of poisoning.

So far, I'm with that earlier post that said that homeopathy gained followers in its early days because, unlike the drugs and therapies at that time, it at least didn't hurt you.

As for dilutive effects and water memory if such an effect existed we should be able to see it in nature as numerous species would have taken advantage of it in the course of their evolutionary development. An animal drinking from a stream that a poisonous snake swam through would become resistant to the snake's venom if homeopathic principles are correct yet that would be a severe evolutionary disadvantage to the snake - what's the point of having venom if things can become resistant to it drinking from a stream you once swam through?

Charlie in Dayton
2003-Nov-25, 05:22 AM
my recently diagnosed diabetes
Preumably from a "regular" doctor---what, if anything, was prescribed?

Oh, absolutely...that particular medical family is now in its third generation if I recall right, and they've been my family practitioner literally since birth.

Prescribed? A couple of medications to increase the body's ability to metabolize sugar (Actos® and Glucontrol® - I'm hyperglycemic - that's the one where you go blind, your kidneys fall out, and your toes fall off), education to learn how to eat properly, regular exercise, daily checkiing of blood sugar levels. I walk at least 1 1/2 miles at least four times a week (and that's a bare minimum - it's usually more), and I poke a finger before breakfast daily. Things still need work, but sugar levels are improving. I want me and all my parts to make 80 concurrently...

On another matter...over on the JREF Board, I did a little mathematicality, and had the troops check my math. Starting with one drop (which is a legitimate scientific measure) of 'pure' whatever, and doing a 24x dilution (which is diluting 1:10, shaking, then taking the 1:10 and doing 1:10 of that, leaving 1:100 etc to a total of 24 times), you wind up with the equivalent of one drop diluted in 15,000,000 cubic MILES of water. And yet homeopaths claim that the more something is diluted, the more powerful it becomes.

??????????????????????

No way... [-(

planethollywood
2003-Nov-25, 07:27 AM
the ultimate test for homeopathy just sprang to mind.

if plain water can retain the memory of any active ingredietent then why not a stain remover.

lets see them moved a day old red wine or grease stain with their 1:15000000 spot remover. HAH! how are them apples...

captain swoop
2003-Nov-25, 08:48 AM
my recently diagnosed diabetes
Preumably from a "regular" doctor---what, if anything, was prescribed?

Oh, absolutely...that particular medical family is now in its third generation if I recall right, and they've been my family practitioner literally since birth.

Prescribed? A couple of medications to increase the body's ability to metabolize sugar (Actos® and Glucontrol® - I'm hyperglycemic - that's the one where you go blind, your kidneys fall out, and your toes fall off), education to learn how to eat properly, regular exercise, daily checkiing of blood sugar levels. I walk at least 1 1/2 miles at least four times a week (and that's a bare minimum - it's usually more), and I poke a finger before breakfast daily. Things still need work, but sugar levels are improving. I want me and all my parts to make 80 concurrently...

On another matter...over on the JREF Board, I did a little mathematicality, and had the troops check my math. Starting with one drop (which is a legitimate scientific measure) of 'pure' whatever, and doing a 24x dilution (which is diluting 1:10, shaking, then taking the 1:10 and doing 1:10 of that, leaving 1:100 etc to a total of 24 times), you wind up with the equivalent of one drop diluted in 15,000,000 cubic MILES of water. And yet homeopaths claim that the more something is diluted, the more powerful it becomes.

??????????????????????

No way... [-(


Check out Quackwatch and Homeowatch.

sarongsong
2003-Nov-25, 04:52 PM
Quackwatch is not to be taken seriously:
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

Sister Ray
2003-Nov-25, 05:15 PM
Quackwatch is not to be taken seriously:
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

Is that the site run by that weird Hulda Clark supporter?

Zamzara
2003-Nov-25, 05:38 PM
Just beacuse a court ruled homeopathy is not illegal, that doen't mean that it works or that quackwatch is wrong.

FP
2003-Nov-25, 05:48 PM
After reading the sites' comments, I find it very reassuring that our legal system is deciding what is good medical care and keeping the pesky scientists and research in their place. #-o

Notice that nowhere (at least that I saw) does the court say any of the treatments promoted by the plaintiffs repesented by these guys actually work. The decisions seem to be on legal and proceedural grounds instead.

Just the way I want my care delivered!

tuffel999
2003-Nov-25, 06:20 PM
Quackwatch is not to be taken seriously:
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but quackwatch is on the up and up. The author, Dr. Stephen Barrett MD, wrote Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions which was the text used by a friend of mine who went to the University of Wisconsin (hack cough oshkosh hack cough). I actually have the fifth edition of the book in a stack somewhere around my desk at home.

swansont
2003-Nov-25, 07:49 PM
Notice that nowhere (at least that I saw) does the court say any of the treatments promoted by the plaintiffs repesented by these guys actually work. The decisions seem to be on legal and proceedural grounds instead.


And further, the legal decision was based on false advertising law. In order to win the case, you'd have to prove the product didn't do what it claimed. As I understand it, the plaintiffs argued that the homeopaths should have to prove that the treatment works (as one might expect of a drug). So it looks like it's a case of one group saying "prove that it works" and the other saying " prove that it doesn't."

There's also a note that "The FDA guidelines permit a homeopathic remedy, meeting the standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, to be marketed. With the exception of certain labeling and registration requirements not at issue, the FDA does not require homeopathic remedies to satisfy other requirements of the Act."

I'm no lawyer, but this sounds like rules governing supplements, not drugs. Say what's in the bottle, bit you don't have to prove it does anything.

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-25, 09:33 PM
So does anyone have any links to placebo-controlled blind (preferably double-blind) studies on homeopathy? I suppose it's time to see some data on this stuff.

(beskeptical, where are you?)

Eta C
2003-Nov-25, 09:52 PM
There's also a note that "The FDA guidelines permit a homeopathic remedy, meeting the standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, to be marketed. With the exception of certain labeling and registration requirements not at issue, the FDA does not require homeopathic remedies to satisfy other requirements of the Act."

This goes way back to when the FDA was created in 1938. To quote Park's "Voodoo Science,"

Homeopathy, it seems, retains a special legal status. In 1938 US Senator Royal Copeland of New York, a homeopath before he became a senator, slipped a provision into the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act granting homeopathic remedies a special exemption from FDA oversight ... homeopathic remedies could be marketed without any proof of safety or effectiveness. This exemption ... remains the law more than sixty years later.
So the reason homeopathy got exemption was because a homeopath made sure it got written into the law. :evil: Think he knew what would happen to his livelihood if his nostrums were subject to the same restrictions as other drugs? [-X

mike alexander
2003-Nov-26, 01:29 AM
Just a start, TriangleMan.



Copyright © 2001, Jonas et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in any medium for any non-commercial purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL. For commercial use, contact info@biomedcentral.com
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2001; 1 (1): 12


A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic clinical trials
Wayne B. Jonas, ,1 Rachel L. Anderson, ,2 Cindy C. Crawford, ,1 and John S. Lyons, 2


1Samueli Institute for Information Biology and Department of Family Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA 2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois, USA


Corresponding author.


Wayne B. Jonas, : wjonas@siib.org; Rachel L. Anderson, : randerson@mail.public-health.uiowa.edu; Cindy C. Crawford, : ccrawford@siib.org; John S. Lyons, : jsl329@nwu.edu


Received July 13, 2001; Accepted December 31, 2001; Published December 31, 2001.

Top
Abstract
Background
Methods
Results
Discussion
Competing interests
References
Abstract

Background
While a number of reviews of homeopathic clinical trials have been done, all have used methods dependent on allopathic diagnostic classifications foreign to homeopathic practice. In addition, no review has used established and validated quality criteria allowing direct comparison of the allopathic and homeopathic literature.

Methods
In a systematic review, we compared the quality of clinical-trial research in homeopathy to a sample of research on conventional therapies using a validated and system-neutral approach. All clinical trials on homeopathic treatments with parallel treatment groups published between 1945–1995 in English were selected. All were evaluated with an established set of 33 validity criteria previously validated on a broad range of health interventions across differing medical systems. Criteria covered statistical conclusion, internal, construct and external validity. Reliability of criteria application is greater than 0.95.

Results
59 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 79% were from peer-reviewed journals, 29% used a placebo control, 51% used random assignment, and 86% failed to consider potentially confounding variables. The main validity problems were in measurement where 96% did not report the proportion of subjects screened, and 64% did not report attrition rate. 17% of subjects dropped out in studies where this was reported. There was practically no replication of or overlap in the conditions studied and most studies were relatively small and done at a single-site. Compared to research on conventional therapies the overall quality of studies in homeopathy was worse and only slightly improved in more recent years.

Conclusions
Clinical homeopathic research is clearly in its infancy with most studies using poor sampling and measurement techniques, few subjects, single sites and no replication. Many of these problems are correctable even within a "holistic" paradigm given sufficient research expertise, support and methods.



The above is the article summary. The entire text can be referenced.

captain swoop
2003-Nov-26, 08:31 AM
Quackwatch is not to be taken seriously:
http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/


That's what the Quacks always say.

planethollywood
2003-Nov-26, 08:49 AM
if pharmaceuticals companies thought if they could sell water as a cure all they would be doing it

mike alexander
2003-Nov-26, 04:58 PM
if pharmaceuticals companies thought if they could sell water as a cure all they would be doing it

No, they wouldn't. And under regulations, they couldn't. Allopathic drugs have to be shown as both safe AND effective.

Why do so many people hate pharmaceutical companies so much? Aside from the large amounts of money many of them make?

tuffel999
2003-Nov-26, 05:01 PM
Could be medication cost.

planethollywood
2003-Nov-26, 10:05 PM
i don't hate them, just expect very capitalistic companies to sell everything they can. Including water as medicine. the fact that they don't (a very cheap medicine to produce and good margin of profit to be made) tells me that they don't think they could get away with.

Why? because it wouldn't pass a double blind test. It would be no better than a placebo. Most people don't realise even when they take prescribed medication for a sniffle or viral infection its your bodies immune system that did the work.

I remember talking to the family doctor back in the 80's about it. He would just tell me to drink plenty of fluids and eat some fruit. he also said that the older patients would complain if they didn't get their prescription of a bottle of pink medicine.

I would like to see alot of these complimentary medicines have stricter laws to protect people from fraud. homeopathic medicine is so much like faith healing where any success is a miracle and promoted like crazy by the local quacks and you never hear of the terminal cancer patient at the end of their rope chasing a miracle who died anyway (and alot poorer).

their are so many quacks of different flavours now, it worries me. when i hear the stories patients tell of complimentary medicines, i can't help feeling that a session with a psycologist would have been much better for them. I would like to see health insurance companies remove complimentary medicine from their available claims.

mike alexander
2003-Nov-26, 11:18 PM
I didn't see where you were coming from, PlanetH. In the general sense, I agree with you (avoiding the legal/business pickypickytalk).

If you take drugs for symptomatic relief while your body deals with a rhinovirus, I also agree; the decongestent may make you feel better, but it doesn't affect the outcome. I will note that there are some partially effective antiviral medications now available for certain limited uses.

There are certain times when antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated for a viral infection. For example, I once had a pretty bad case of viral pneumonia and my physician put me on an anitbiotic regimen to prevent an opportunistic lung infection while the viral thing cleared up. Special case.

I would generally favor extension of the Kefauver Amendment to cover all 'pharmaceuticals'. I say this with some trepidation, as I really don't like government interference. But I don't like the Ayn Rand "If enough people die from taking it, the company will have to pull it." philosophy, either.

Does the current structure favor large companies? Yup. Is the drug approval process as currently implemented by the FDA the only way to do it? Nope. Is it foolproof? Definitely not. Is this a complex and potentially dangerous business where some professionals with government oversight can provide some safeguards to a populace that cannot be reasonably expected to understand the complex issues? In my opinion, yes.

(In the interests of disclosure, I have worked in the health/pharmaceutical area for my entire career:government, multinational, biotech startup, and independent contract lab, where I currently am. You can weigh my opinions in that light.)

tuffel999
2003-Nov-27, 12:32 AM
I will note that there are some partially effective antiviral medications now available for certain limited uses.

There are certain times when antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated for a viral infection. For example, I once had a pretty bad case of viral pneumonia and my physician put me on an anitbiotic regimen to prevent an opportunistic lung infection while the viral thing cleared up. Special case.


There are many antivirals in studies now and many more on the way that are very efficent. HIV/AIDS is the biggest target right now for many reasons. One of the reasons is it is a 'sloppy' replicatory and does not replicate its genome(RNA not DNA it is a retro virus) with very high fidelity which allows it to mutate very quickly and avoid drugs targeted at it.

One of the big reasons for antibiotics with viral pneumonia is Pseudomonas aeruginosa. it is an orpotunistic pathnogen that is very antibiotic resistant and is a ***** to get rid of. http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact330/lecturepseudomonas

sarongsong
2003-Nov-27, 01:46 AM
i don't hate them, just expect very capitalistic companies to sell everything they can. Including water as medicine. the fact that they don't (a very cheap medicine to produce and good margin of profit to be made) tells me that they don't think they could get away with. Why? because it wouldn't pass a double blind test. ...planethollywood
Water is not patentable, therefore not profitable.
Same holds true for colloidal silver (Ag+), distilled water and pure silver ions, which costs pennies to produce and in which no bacteria can survive more than 6 minutes;
Scientific American, 1914:
http://nctimes.net/~jimbud/sa1of3.htm
http://nctimes.net/~jimbud/sa20f3.htm
http://nctimes.net/~jimbud/sa3of3.htm
Not to worry, tho. Other corporations are quietly securing water rights world-wide for guess-what-purposes.

and you never hear of the terminal cancer patient at the end of their rope chasing a miracle who died anyway (and alot poorer)
You've heard of Steve McQueen?
http://www.drkelley.com/CANLIVER55.html#_Toc434240031

captain swoop
2003-Nov-27, 08:54 AM
[quote]


Same holds true for colloidal silver (Ag+), distilled water and pure silver ions, which costs pennies to produce and in which no bacteria can survive more than 6 minutes;




Coloidal silver

'Risk Without benefit'
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html

sarongsong
2003-Nov-27, 09:18 AM
Consider the source:
"Long-term use of silver preparations can lead to argyria, a condition in which silver salts..."
Where'd the salt come from?
"Silver preparations" is not the same as colloidal silver.
Strike two...

tuffel999
2003-Nov-27, 02:51 PM
Consider the source:
"Long-term use of silver preparations can lead to argyria, a condition in which silver salts..."
Where'd the salt come from?
"Silver preparations" is not the same as colloidal silver.
Strike two...

Sorry sarong you strike out here. Long term ingestion of silver can cause a condition called argyria. Silver slats are merely the most common form ingested but not the only. Silver from many sources can cause argyria.

An excert from anarticle written by Kamila K Padlewska, MD and Robert A Schwartz, MD, MPH (it is in one of the links). While silver salts are one of the main causes at the bottom you will notice that the are giving silver levels not silver salts as you can eventually die from heavy metal poisoning from silver. There are reasons why you shouldn't drink suspensions of heavy metals to kill bacteria, they can kill you too.

Universal argyria: This can develop after long-term systemic treatment with silver salts containing drugs. This used to occur in patients who had taken silver protein suspension for chronic gastritis or gastric ulcer, or as nose drops. Argyria also happens as an occupational disease in workers who prepare artificial pearls or who are employed in the cutting and polishing of silver (absorption of silver dust).

The normal human body contains about 1 mg silver; the smallest amount of silver reported to produce generalized argyria in humans ranges from 4-5 g to 20-40 g. Silver at 50-500 mg/kg body weight is the lethal toxic dose in humans.

These are summary info:

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9439
http://www.5mcc.com/Assets/SUMMARY/TP0851.html
http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic595.htm

So these two are primary literature:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=863250 3&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=111075 24&dopt=Abstract

And this one is a personal story form a patient:

http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/rose1.html

captain swoop
2003-Nov-27, 04:40 PM
Gosh 2 scary adverts for machines to make your own coloidal silver!

sarongsong
2003-Nov-27, 07:44 PM
Sorry sarong you strike out here
Your statements may be true EXCEPT for the above.
Like Dr. Barrett, you've lapsed into "salts", "silver from many sources", "suspensions of heavy metals", "silver salts containing drug[s]", " silver protein suspension", "workers who prepare artificial pearls" [?], "absorption of silver dust" and "Silver at 50-500 mg/kg body weight is the lethal toxic dose in humans".
None of which are applicable to colloidal silver, which is comprised of pure silver and distilled water, to which electric current is introduced, stripping positive-charged silver ions into suspension. You would drown before drinking enough to even give you a headache.
"...By establishing 100 parts of silver in a billion parts of water as hygienic for drinking in the Shuttle, NASA eliminates the need for the 1,000 to 1.500 ppb of chlorine generally used for purification..."
http://www.doulton.ca/vol6-3mar76.html
And the US Army just ordered 3 million gallons from Clifton Mining:
http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m64823.html
http://www.cliftonmining.com/ann0.htm
Rosemary Jacobs, by the way was not ingesting true colloidal silver.

tuffel999
2003-Nov-27, 08:07 PM
Sarong some how you keep avoiding what is being pointed out here very simply. Silver is a HEAVY METAL. Excess heavy metal in the body can and does lead to various forms of HEAVY METAL poisoning. Plain and simple. I have emailed a biochemist friend of mine to answer a particular question but until I hear back I can't be 100% positive but I believe the way this works in silver is similar to Mercury. Mercury is extremely toxic but not too readily absorbed but don't go breaking thermometers to find out. On the other hand methyl mercury is VERY readily absorbed by the body making lower doses of this form more dangerous since lower doses are required. Silver salts MAY(I say MAY until I get this email back) work the smae way. Lead is another heavy metal that can be absorbed pure but is more readily absorbed in compound forms. SMALL and I mean SMALL amounts of all three of these will not kill you I have fillings to prove it but these are heavy metals which means they build up over time so repeated exposures cause increasing levels in the body. The federal standards for these metals in drinking water is WAY below the dangerous level. Please read the links for once here are more. These deal directly with silver levels and your coloidal stuff. Much still isn't known about the end impact of silver on humans but htere is enough preliminary data to warrant caution.


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00971.html
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs146.html

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-27, 08:30 PM
How did this thread go from homeopathy to colloidal silver anyway? :-?

Well in case it continues, does anyone have links to blind, placebo-controlled studies on colloidal silver? Rosemary (http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/rose6.html#9) didn't appear to have any links to any.

Meanwhile, I recalled that a US politician had problems with colloidal silver and turned blue (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/offbeat.blue.candidate/). :)

tuffel999
2003-Nov-27, 08:42 PM
Studies, course of action, and the full toxicology reports on all forms of silver where what I emailed out about. Being Thanksgiving here in the states I doubt I will hear back until monday unfortunately. Besides if it is bad medicine it belongs here there are all forms of bad medicine not just hoemopathy. I will add one other thing there are good medicine uses for silver in treating CERTAIN bacteria but wholesale ingestion of said product isn't one of them. Also most often the appearance of silver in water is either a natural or b leak through from certain filter types employed to kill bacteria.

Also for Sarong, before you beat this one up read the links carefully the FDA did say this:

"Colloidal silver ingredients and silver salts include silver proteins, mild silver protein, strong silver protein, silver chloride, and silver iodide. The dosage form of these colloidal silver products is usually oral, but product labeling also contains directions for topical and, occasionally, intravenous use."

Note the and that means both colloidal silver and silver slats NOT just silver salts.

sarongsong
2003-Nov-27, 09:03 PM
Excess heavy metal in the body can and does lead to various forms of HEAVY METAL poisoning
No kidding.
"Excess" CS is eliminated thru the urinary tract, much as Vitamin C is.
What is your obsession with salt all about. There is no salt in CS unless you put it there.

"Colloidal silver ingredients and silver salts...


does anyone have links to blind, placebo-controlled studies on colloidal silver?
There aren't any---no one's about to put out the $2 million to do it.

a US politician had problems with colloidal silver and turned blue
That's because he made his own CS with TAP water instead of distilled.

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-27, 09:46 PM
That's because he made his own CS with TAP water instead of distilled.

I agree that he used tap water, but how do you know that is what turned him blue and that colliodal silver with distilled water won't?

sarongsong
2003-Nov-28, 12:46 AM
Because he and Rosemary are the only 2 known "blue" CS users and both used inferior concoctions. And who is to say whether or not whatever silver DID get into their bodies didn't alleviate whatever condition they took it for?
Being blue beats not being.
Microdyn, a CS product made in Mexico, has been used extensively for many years there medicinally and for drinking-water sanitization.
Bacteria cannot mutate itself away from the effects of CS, as it has proven to do with nearly every anti-biotic introduced since penicillin. Can you imagine what this means to pharmaceutical companies who seem to come out with a new product every week "guaranteed" to kill the latest mutation? As medical big business slowly tightens the noose around healthcare availability and begins to squeeze, at least consider what two pieces of .999 pure silver, distilled water, and a 9-volt battery might accomplish.
CS can be and is safely used internally, externally, nebulized and IV'ed.
As for the FDA, 3 guesses as to what industry its revolving-door leadership come from.

...I believe the way this works in silver is similar to Mercury...
I don't think so; here's how mercury works:
http://commons.ucalgary.ca/mercury/
Quite insidious, and mercury is used in most vaccines as a "preservative".

tuffel999
2003-Nov-28, 01:54 AM
Ok Sarong so obviously I was wrong about you. You are intentionally avoiding the subject since you have no data. Heavy metals are not eliminated through the urinary tract. They accumulate in the body. Nice try though. Vitamin C exits via the urinary tract because it is water soluable. I would really like to see where someone has proven that Silver is water soluable because if they have it defeats the purpose of a colliod. A colliod is like a bunch of suspended particles that cannot pass through a semipermeable membrane becuase they are not disolved rather they are suspended. Solutions on the other hand such as Vitamin C and water can pass through membranes hence they leave the kidneys into the urinary tract.

Now my supposed obsession with salt...I have none. I have never referred to silver salts other than when commenting on text. Go back and reread the posts. I think your problem may be that english isn't your first language. Is it? I don't know but for some reason the conjunction and is foreign to you and that has been a big problem here.

Now mercury. Well sarong you are wrong here to that is how mercurey works go look it up.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg46.html
Actually I don't know why I keep posting things for you to read since you don't but give it a try reading is fun-damental. Yes mercury was used in vaccines for a while but as it turns out there MAY(note that is a qualifier in English this denotes when something may or may not be total proven for all cases) be linked to Autism. It has been a while since i have seen any research on this so this may have changed but at any rate mercury is bad news.

Now my main field of expertise bacteria. So you think that bacteria cannot mutate to become resistant to a heavy metal. Wow wish that was true but it isn't. The neat things about bacteria is they have extremly sort generation times (E.coli is on the order of 20 minutes), extremly variable genomes(species of bacteria can diverge by 40% of their DNA sequence where as humans nad our closest relatives diverge by 2%), carry exchangeable pieces of DNA called plasmids and transposons that specifically code for resistance to antibiotics and heavy metals, and live in extraordinary high numbers. These factors allow for these guys to mutate at phenomina rates. Even if you kill 99% of a colony of bacteria (typically 10^8 or 10^9 bacteria in a colony) you have a large number of survivors and this is about the best killing you can hope for. Not only do bacteria survive heavy metals they thrive in heavy metals. READ the links below. Fun part about it is Silver resistance is one of the models for heavy metal resistance in bacteria, and not YOUR favorite of SILVER SALTS but plain old Ag (see link 4).

http://www.uga.edu/srel/ESSite/antibiotic_resistant_bacteria.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list _uids=10805561&dopt=Abstract

http://www.msi.ucsb.edu/msilinks/CRC/CRCtexts/Toxics/ucsd3.html
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1994/Suppl-3/silver.html

FP
2003-Nov-28, 02:43 AM
You go tuffel! I wish I had time to search the literature on silver, but as far as I know (and I am a board certified family practitioner) the only "mainstream" use of silver is as a topical treatment in burns (i.e., Silvadene cream.)

I don't think there are any good double-blind studies about ingesting silver in any form, be it a "salt" (which means, by the way, an ionic compound bound by differing charges, NaCl being only one example) or colloidal.

Personally, I avoid heavy metals at every opportunity.

tuffel999
2003-Nov-28, 03:50 AM
Thank you FP. I did a small undergraduate project on heavy metal poisoning around my university so i have a stack of literature still hanging around and as a graduate student i am working on antibiotic resistance in Neisseria meningitidis/gonorrhea. The fun part is this pertains to both as these two bugs have a general efflux pump system that pumps out low levels of antibiotics, bile salts(probably shouldn't have said salts because of well you know), charged ions, metabolic products and other charged and unfavorable substances like detergents. I have never tested heavy metals in this particular pathnogen but this has gotten me kind of curious to start looking through the literature. Have a good thanksgiving FP and thanks sometimes it feels like shouting in the wind.

sarongsong
2003-Nov-28, 07:17 AM
...not YOUR favorite of SILVER SALTS but plain old Ag
There you go again.

I would really like to see where someone has proven that Silver is water soluable
"Biologic Transport of Silver Ions"
http://www.health2us.com/transport.htm

Now mercury. Well sarong you are wrong here to that is how mercurey works
Did you actually watch the University of Calgary's breakthrough QuickTime video?
"How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration"
http://commons.ucalgary.ca/mercury/
Tell THEM they got it wrong.

Actually I don't know why I keep posting things for you to read since you don't but give it a try reading is fun-damental.
"I think your problem may be that english isn't your first language" , gee, wonder who said that.

Fun part about it is Silver resistance is one of the models for heavy metal resistance in bacteria
Oh really...have you even tested CS, which in actuality is 85% ionic, against ANY form of bacteria? You seem to be equipped for this simple yay or nay experiment. At 5ppm, for example.

Yes mercury was used in vaccines for a while but as it turns out there MAY (note that is a qualifier in English this denotes when something may or may not be total proven for all cases) be linked to Autism.
It has been a while since i have seen any research on this so this may have changed.
Considerably:
"For decades, half of all childhood vaccines contained a chemical preservative called thimerosal. It is made from mercury...Before the 1990s, 1 in 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism...recent studies suggest the rate of autism has risen to 1 in about 250...pharmaceutical companies agreed to stop manufacturing vaccines containing thimerosal in March 2001...vaccine vials already containing Thimerosal were not recalled..."
http://www.mercola.com/2002/jun/5/thimerosal.htm.

sarongsong
2003-Nov-28, 07:19 AM

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-28, 12:27 PM
Because he and Rosemary are the only 2 known "blue" CS users and both used inferior concoctions.
And that is 'proof' it had to be tap water that caused the problem?
So doctors developed the term 'argyria' from those two cases? I thought the term had been in the medical dictionaries for a while due to cases of silver expoure from various cough medications and dust from silver mining.

And who is to say whether or not whatever silver DID get into their bodies didn't alleviate whatever condition they took it for?
Being blue beats not being.
Rosemary was taking it for nose problems which she claimed got better after she stopped taking CS and instead got out of the house more, she suspects it may have been allergies or cigarette smoke that caused the problem in the first place. Stan Jones took CS because he feared that Y2K disruptions would cause a shortage of antibiotics, he wasn't taking CS to cure an existing condition. The rest of your statement is 'superstition logic', it's like saying that since your mother's back isn't broken then not stepping on cracks all those years must really work.

Microdyn, a CS product made in Mexico, has been used extensively for many years there medicinally and for drinking-water sanitization.
Microdyn (http://www.silverinstitute.org/news/5b01.html) is indeed used for water purification and for washing unpeeled vegetables. I couldn't find a link that said it was used as a medicine.
Please read the article and note the concentration of silver in the solution:

Microdyn: 3.57 ppm
one CS product (http://www.silvercolloidal.net/): 10 ppm
This one (http://www.n-ergetics.com/): 1100 ppm!
this generator (http://colloidalsilvergens.com/): 5-40 ppm
and the last one (http://www.simplyslender.com/UltraPure-Page1.html): 35 ppm

Hmmm, if it worked as a internal medicine then wouldn't everyone in those Mexican cities not have any cases of bacterial infection?
And I thought there were some beneficial bacteria in the digestive tract, why would you want to kill it with CS?

sarongsong
2003-Nov-28, 06:09 PM
And that is 'proof' it had to be tap water that caused the problem?
Read what Stan himself had to say:
"Yes this is my response. Yes you have permission to distribute as widely as possible.
Stan Jones, for Liberty and good health!"
http://silverfacts.netfirms.com/pages/jones.html

So doctors developed the term 'argyria' from those two cases
Now THAT"S 'superstition logic'. Nowhere did I say or imply that.
[Cure for argyria
http://www.silvermedicine.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13 ]

Hmmm, if it worked as a internal medicine then wouldn't everyone in those Mexican cities not have any cases of bacterial
infection?
For those who drink the water.

And I thought there were some beneficial bacteria in the digestive tract, why would you want to kill it with CS?
The Lone Ranger (whose income came from his silver mine) only shot the bad guys, remember?
Woo-wooh!

Sammy
2003-Nov-28, 06:38 PM
FYI, there are MORE than the two cases of silver poisoning mentioned above. Check the FDA on silver (sorry, can't get to the link now) and note that there are seven known cases.

Also, I don't think you do much for YOUR credibility by disparaging comments ("...consider the source...") re Quackwatch. I have found that attitude to be a defining woo woo characteristic on any medical issue. Quackwatch is one of the very few web sites that I find to be trustworthy. They aren't selling anything, they don't accept funding from the concerned parties, and they have a large body of experts upon which they draw.

The people promoting colloidal silver use typically ARE from the woo woo community are and almost universally mutter about the great conspiracy by the "government" and "the AMA" to keep this great healthcare "discovery" from the public. PLEASE NOTE--I AM NOT saying that this discribes you, but the comment re Quackwatch is typical of what these folks say. My apologies if I have got you wrong.

Last, please let us know EXACTLY what constituent of urban tap WOULD turn people blue when used to make colloidal silver. Anyone else have info on that?

sarongsong
2003-Nov-28, 11:17 PM
My apologies if I have got you wrong
Thanks, Sammy, you may have; you got'ta have a thick skin around here :lol:

Check the FDA on silver (sorry, can't get to the
link now) and note that there are seven known cases
Let me know if you find it; it's a huge site. Were they due to some form of CS?

I don't think you do much for YOUR credibility by disparaging comments ("...consider the source...") re Quackwatch...
QW may have their act together in areas other than CS, but you'd think with their combined expertise, one of them would at least grab a petri dish of bacteria and toss in some CS, before drifting off into "salts" in the second sentence of their argument. There is no salt in properly made CS.

The people promoting colloidal silver use typically ARE from the woo woo community
Undoubtedly, some promoters do, but talk to or listen to what its actual users and home-brewers have to say:
http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html

please let us know EXACTLY what constituent of urban tap WOULD turn people blue
"Any element that will combine with silver and produce a high ppm of silver compound. Eating undeveloped photo emulsion then going out in the sun will cause the same thing, for the same reason. You do not want to be in the middle of a photo developing cycle."---Marshall Dudley

sarongsong
2003-Nov-28, 11:27 PM
You are intentionally avoiding the subject since you have no data. Heavy metals...---tuffel999
Well, get the subject correct---silver is not a heavy metal, it's a TRANSITION metal.

Glom
2003-Nov-28, 11:45 PM
Well, get the subject correct---silver is not a heavy metal, it's a TRANSITION metal.

It's both, isnt' it?

sarongsong
2003-Nov-29, 03:04 AM
It's both, isnt' it?
Not all are.

tuffel999
2003-Nov-29, 03:37 AM
...not YOUR favorite of SILVER SALTS but plain old Ag
There you go again.

"I think your problem may be that english isn't your first language" , gee, wonder who said that.

Fun part about it is Silver resistance is one of the models for heavy metal resistance in bacteria
Oh really...have you even tested CS, which in actuality is 85% ionic, against ANY form of bacteria? You seem to be equipped for this simple yay or nay experiment. At 5ppm, for example.


Sigh....here we are again you putting words in my mouth.....I have not said silver salts in my arguments other than when referring to literature. (Gee this is getting repetitive)

Second, yes that was me who asked if english was your first language and if you understood the conjunction and. SO is English your first language, do oyu understand the conjunction and?

Have I personally tested silver, no I don't have to I am not arguing your point for you. Second, it is already in the literature and I don't really see my PI letting me do it to make you happy. Third, colloidal silver or regular Ag it makes no difference it was right there in the literature and you even said Ag not silver modified forms which was in the 4th link I told you to read. And it has been proven that bacteria can be resistant to Ag. GO figure reading is fun-damental.

When referring to Silver and Mercury OSHA clumps them together as does my Biochemistry text under a broader category referred to as Toxic Metals and as my textbook says" to replace the formerly named group heavy metals in order to be more inclusive of elements with similair effects and properties." So heavy metals may not have been absolutely accurate but it was close enough for this discussion. Don't believe me well tell OSHA they are wrong...
http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/metalsheavy/

sarongsong
2003-Nov-29, 04:45 AM
Have I personally tested silver, no I don't have to I am not arguing your point for you.
Oh, a theoritician; now I understand.

I don't really see my PI letting me do it to make you happy.
I'm happy, I'm happy.
How much effort would it take?

...colloidal silver or regular Ag it makes no difference it
was right there in the literature
Ah, but it does make a difference; I'm talking CS.
And as for the literature---well, your latest meandering Toxic Metal link features a nice discussion of silver COMPOUNDS:

http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/metalsheavy/
"...At trace levels, many of these elements are necessary to support life...
http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/metalsheavy/

HEALTH EFFECTS: Cumulative skin pigmentation and organ accumulation (HE3)
http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_267300.html
Silver, Metal & Soluble Compounds (as Ag)
http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/metalsheavy/silver.html

PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT PDF File
Therefore, these silver compounds will be the main topic
of this profile. Throughout the profile, the various silver compounds will at times be referred to simply as silver.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp146-c1.pdf ..."


...And it has been proven that bacteria can be resistant to Ag...
Sorry, missed that link.

...referred to as Toxic Metals...
Somehow, "toxic" conjures up "death" in my mind. Got any figures on death-by-silver?

Sammy
2003-Nov-29, 06:28 AM
Saraongsong wrote


QW may have their act together in areas other than CS, but you'd think with their combined expertise, one of them would at least grab a petri dish of bacteria and toss in some CS, before drifting off into "salts" in the second sentence of their argument. There is no salt in properly made CS. (emphasis added)

You're flogging a dead horse here. The presence of salts is irrelevant at this point. I don't doubt for second that silver (in colloidal or salts form) is a bacteriostatic agent -- my home well water system uses silver as a bacteriostat. That is generally recognized, so there is no need for Quackwatch to verify it. I can also take a petri dish of bacteria and dump in a cup of Chlorox and those bateria will be in bug paradise in no time -- BUT I'm sure as hell NOT going to ingest Chlorox.

The issue is whether or not colloidal silver is safe and effective in vivo, and the research/knowledge base to support just isn't there. As the FDA says, the risks outweigh the possible benefits.

Getting back to the salts issue -- I am not a biochemist, but wouldn't the colloidal silver very quickly FORM salts once ingested? I can't see why not. Hopefully, some of the folks with more info on this aspect will comment (Mike Alexander, for one -- hope you're following this thread).

sarongsong
2003-Nov-29, 08:50 AM
Thanks for the clarification.

The issue is whether or not colloidal silver is safe and effective in vivo
Valid issue. Not to those it's helped, however, AND, at the extreme end of this issue, there are no known fatalities attributed to its use.

and the research/knowledge base to support just isn't there.
Certainly not in a form of common agreement.

As the FDA says, the risks outweigh the possible benefits.
Quite right...to the pharmaceutical industry juggernaut---in my opinion only, of course, and those who've proven it to their own satisfaction.

I am not a biochemist, but wouldn't the colloidal silver very quickly FORM salts once ingested?
Nor am I, but why unnecessarily START OUT with it? Nebulized applications should especially be considered on this point.

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-29, 03:22 PM
Go away for a while and miss a lot, oh well.

Getting back to a point on evidence (I will summarize the posts on the topic here, I believe they are all from page 3 of this thread)


a US politician had problems with colloidal silver and turned blue

That's because he made his own CS with TAP water instead of distilled.

I agree that he used tap water, but how do you know that is what turned him blue and that colliodal silver with distilled water won't?

Because he and Rosemary are the only 2 known "blue" CS users and both used inferior concoctions.

And that is 'proof' it had to be tap water that caused the problem?

Read what Stan himself had to say:
http://silverfacts.netfirms.com/pages/jones.html

That's your proof - Stan said so? How does he know it was the tap water instead of using distilled water, he do a study or something?

So once again, how do you know CS in tap water is what turned him blue and CS with distilled water wouldn't have? Is Stan's say-so all the evidence you need?

tuffel999
2003-Nov-29, 05:33 PM
Valid issue. Not to those it's helped, however, AND, at the extreme end of this issue, there are no known fatalities attributed to its use.

Yes and the tobacco industry claimed that there were no attributal fatalities for years, doesn't make it true though.

Also, finally got that stupid quicktime video to work all at once instead of having to reload it a dozen times and it was freaking useless. It had nothing to do with heavy or toxic metal (which appears to be the new correct term) absorption all it was was a study on neuron formation deviations in the presence of mercury, which was never at debate here. A disease that was called mad hatters disease if I remember right years ago because hatters would use mercury in tanning of hides and such.

Third, it doesn't matter how easy the experiment would be for me to do my PI is my boss. I do the work I am supposed to for my project otherwise I can get in deep s*** for misuse of university property. If you had any lab or research type experience you would know that.

Fourth, I went back and was rereading your links and I noticed none come from recognized medical authorities. The one that comes the closest was from 1914 and gives no controls or scientific method for their work. Also scientific american really isn't what you would call a peer reviewed medical journal. Hell I can find more peer reviewed literature on the benefits of marijuana than colliodal silver. This should be a good clue that your point may not have any scientific backing.

Fifth, toxic doesn't mean death invest in a dictionary because word use seems to be a problem again.
Toxic:
1 : of, relating to, or caused by a poison or toxin
2 : affected by a poison or toxin
3 : POISONOUS
Lethal means death:
1 a : of, relating to, or causing death <death by lethal injection>
b : capable of causing death <lethal chemicals>

http://www.m-w.com/
Things can and are toxic but not lethal they simply cause a certain amount of damage short of death.

This will be my last post on this subject as I do not have the time to keep combing primary literature for this garbage and I have a very busy two weeks coming up in the lab. If anything else pops up on this thread that won't take as much of my time I will look at that or if after my next set of experiments is done and I have some time I may revisit this subject if the need is there. However, your point still doesn't hold water sarong and it is you who has to prove your point since you brought it up. I merely have to address your points which I have wit hrecognized medical authorities. In the mean time the people around here are intelligent enough to think and look at the data presented and make there own decisions, the unfortunate part is I am afraid for the other people you have spread this bunk on to. Now if you will excuse me I have mice that need my attention.

sarongsong
2003-Nov-29, 06:07 PM
How does he know it was the tap water instead of using distilled water, he do a study or something?
Not to my knowledge.

...how do you know CS in tap water is what turned him blue and CS with distilled water
The term "colloidal" silver is somewhat misleading because it's the ionic form of silver that does the heavy-lifting; silver atoms stripped of an electron, thus positively charged, repelling each other into suspension in the distilled water. This makes them small enough to penetrate any bacteria. A tablespoon of correctly made CS will have more ions than cells in one's body. If you don't start out with pure silver and pure water, you're going to end up with all kinds of compounds much larger than an ion, and possibly blue skin if taken over a long enough period of time, as Rosemary and Stan have demonstrated.

sarongsong
2003-Nov-29, 06:25 PM
How about Brigham Young University's Microbiology Department:
http://www.csprosystems.com/BYU_Bacteria_Testing.html

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-29, 06:36 PM
...how do you know CS in tap water is what turned him blue and CS with distilled water
The term "colloidal" silver is somewhat misleading because it's the ionic form of silver that does the heavy-lifting; silver atoms stripped of an electron, thus positively charged, repelling each other into suspension in the distilled water. This makes them small enough to penetrate any bacteria. A tablespoon of correctly made CS will have more ions than cells in one's body.

That's odd, according to this CS manufacturer (http://www.purestcolloids.com/bogus.htm) you're completely wrong! (anything in brackets not in original)


When discussing metal colloids such as colloidal silver, the term colloid means silver particles in suspension not silver ions in solution.

( . . .further down page . . .)

(some CS sites claim)This electrical charge is of primary importance to healing and anti-bacterial qualities.
(CS site answer) More bogus science. The positive ionic charge of the silver ions does not survive inside the human body.

Sarongsong, here is a CS manufacturer telling us that you are promoting bogus science! :o Tell you what, why don't you contact them and the two of you can first sort out which one of you is right, then you can come back and let us know, okay?

By the way,


If you don't start out with pure silver and pure water, you're going to end up with all kinds of compounds much larger than an ion, and possibly blue skin if taken over a long enough period of time, as Rosemary and Stan have demonstrated.

Can you come up with something better, like say a biochemical mechanism for a larger silver ion turning skin blue? How about a study?

At least that CS manufacturer knew enough chemistry to know that silver ions would mix with your digestive juices and form compounds, which is probably why they are emphasizing the opposite of what you just said.

sarongsong
2003-Nov-29, 11:40 PM
TriangleMan. you have squared the circle, so to speak! Truly, cross-examination IS the engine of truth. Thanks for finding that site:
http://www.purestcolloids.com/
Its FAQ seems to address all the questions raised here.
http://www.purestcolloids.com/FAQ.htm
When it comes to CS, Frank Key IS the man; a recognized authority.
http://www.colloidalsciencelab.com/
If he says its the nanometer-size ( 0.65 nm) particles of silver that do the work (vs. ions), that's good enough for me. My home-brewed 10 ppm CS, with 85-95% ionic content and 5-15% particulate, while falling way short of their specs, is a simple tribute to the power of silver's efficacy. (It has been suggested elsewhere that even 1 ppm has proven successful.)
Thanks to all who contributed to this branch of the thread, especially tuffel999, who interrupted his studies to contribute, and if you're still listening there is a request for your earlier paper on toxic heavy metals here, if it includes something on silver:
"it would be nice to see a "paper" written on "silver". could you talk your acquaintance into putting his research on the list here? could be that both sides could become more enlightened." ---Acmeair (jim)
http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m65274.html
Toodles...

captain swoop
2003-Dec-01, 09:58 AM
It's always funny how people think sites like Quackwatch and the Skeptics dictionary etc are wonderful unless they question someones own strange belief. Then the usualy reliable site is wrong and should retract and replace their articals. :lol:

mike alexander
2003-Dec-01, 07:58 PM
OK.

Colloidal silver is a suspension of extremely fine (nanometer scale) particles of metallic silver. As a metal, the individual silver atoms in the particles have no net charge. It is possible that the particles could pick up a net surface charge, but this is not the same as ionization. Colloids are marked by an extremely large surface area/mass ratio. It can be difficult to predict the properties of a finely divided material from the bulk form (for example, extremely fine iron powder is pyrophoric).

Silver commonly loses one electron to achieve the stable d10 orbital configuration, and most compounds are of the singly charged ion. A few are soluble (nitrate, perchlorate), but most are only sparingly so (halides).

Silver metal is insoluble in water. Extended contact of distilled water with silver metal will result in silver ion concentrations of one part in twenty million or so. Contact with a colloid will speed the process, due to the vastly increased surface area. The exact mechanism is still obscure. Distilled water equilibrated with silver is bactericidal (other heavy metals work, too), but the effect may have limited extrapolation potential to living tissue. What it appears to mean is that silver ions are bactericidal (or bacteriostatic) at concentrations below those required to cause gross protein precipitation.

Silver ions will interact with virtually all reactive chemical groups (carboxyl, sulfhydril, phosphate, amino). If they are part of a protein the silver will cause significant changes in the protein structure (conformation) and can lead to precipitation. Silver metal will not react with such prosthetic groups; it needs to be ionized first.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-03, 02:06 AM
Switching subjects now. I came across this, "Efficacy and Safety of Echinacea in Treating Upper Respiratory Tract Infections in Children" in tomorrow's issue of the journal of the American Medical Association. I give it about 2 days to hit the news. The link below is to the abstract since you have to be a subscriber to ge tthe full text.



http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/21/2824

sarongsong
2003-Dec-03, 04:52 AM
...I give it about 2 days to hit the news...
Recognized nothing in the Abstract to indicate the source of funding for this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that concludes "Echinacea purpurea, as dosed in this study, was not effective in treating URI symptoms in patients 2 to 11 years old, and its use was associated with an increased risk of rash."
Any idea? Is it unusual to find a trial such as this for "a widely used herbal remedy"?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-03, 04:57 AM
The research is supported by an NIH R01 grant.....I will have to go back into the ejournals to get the grant number.

Edit: Sorry K series grant. My bad.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-03, 05:06 AM
I went back and dug again. It is also supported in part by grant # AT00114-01 from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Multiple funding sources are not unusual in research. Actually I am kind of surprised it was only 2 because it appears to be a pretty big study.

Sammy
2003-Dec-03, 05:49 AM
Our tax dollars at work.

I have some doubts about the work of the NCCAM in testing herbal and "folk medicine" cures. I suspect that most of them will turn out showing little or no efficacy, and in some cases, risk. But the woo woos will not accept them because they run contrary to their views, and because the government "controlled" them to protect the AMA and the drug companies from being shown up.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-03, 08:35 AM
Posted: 03 Dec 2003
...I give it about 2 days to hit the news...
It hit the 11PM News tonight, Tuesday Dec 2, on KUSI-TV (San Diego), a full 30 seconds worth, concluding with "...and 7% of the children developed rashes." No mention of "...as dosed in this study...".
Thanks for the grant info.

...it appears to be a pretty big study...
Was it unusual having the parents gather the data? Good cost-saving move, tho, depending on level of funding.

captain swoop
2003-Dec-03, 09:12 AM
Our tax dollars at work.

I have some doubts about the work of the NCCAM in testing herbal and "folk medicine" cures. I suspect that most of them will turn out showing little or no efficacy, and in some cases, risk. But the woo woos will not accept them because they run contrary to their views, and because the government "controlled" them to protect the AMA and the drug companies from being shown up.

From

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ideomotor.html

Discussing a 'double blind' test of Applied Kinesiology

When these results were announced, the head chiropractor turned to me and said, "You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It never works!" At first I thought he was joking. It turned it out he was quite serious. Since he "knew" that applied kinesiology works, and the best scientific method shows that it does not work, then -- in his mind -- there must be something wrong with the scientific method. This is both a form of loopholism as well as an illustration of what I call the plea for special dispensation. Many pseudo- and fringe-scientists often react to the failure of science to confirm their prized beliefs, not by gracefully accepting the possibility that they were wrong, but by arguing that science is defective.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-03, 05:07 PM
My cousin and her husband are chiropractors......whenever I see them I call them doctors of quackology....it really pisses them off.

mike alexander
2003-Dec-03, 08:41 PM
Oh Captain, my Captain!


"You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It never works!"

There is the mark of true genius in the simplicity, elegance and stupidity of that quote. Perhaps NCCAM could trademark it for their logo.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-04, 05:30 AM
"Investigative writer Jon Rappoport will talk in depth about the pharmaceutical cartel vs. natural medicine..."
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
Tonite, 12/03/03

sarongsong
2003-Dec-05, 08:49 AM
December 05, 2003
"Three Maryland researchers have admitted fabricating interviews with teenagers for a study on AIDS prevention that received more than $1 million in federal (NIH) funds.."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031204-113809-8229r.htm.
[-X

tuffel999
2003-Dec-06, 03:36 AM
Ok for once I am the one looking for a reference I haven't seen any information on this until this article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20031205/sc_nm/health_cocaine_dna_dc

Anybody else have something on this? Thanks.

mike alexander
2003-Dec-06, 05:37 AM
I'm looking around, but can't find anything yet.

On the other hand, this sounds vaguely as if it were lifted from Weekly World News, not Reuters:


"Cocaine and ecstasy have proved to be more dangerous than we had imagined," said Giorgio Bronzetti, chief scientist at the National Center for Research's (CNR) biotechnology department.


"These drugs, on top of their toxicological effects, attack DNA provoking mutations and altering the hereditary material. This is very worrying for the effects it could have on future generations," he said.

"Chief Scientist" for "Biotechnology"? Not only provoking mutations, but also altering the hereditary material.

Apologize in advance if I'm off base.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-06, 03:43 PM
No it is fine the reason I asked is I can't find anything about it when I was searching ejournals. It quite possibly be made up, out of context, or only half right it did come through Reuters(then Yahoo). If it is wrong it is Bad Medicine so I posted it here. If anyone finds anything let me know. So far PubMed hasn't pulled anything about controlled substances and the chief scientists name.

Also it may not be entirely flaky(although I don't know) since the 'chief scientists' tittle would probably have been translated from Italian. And you know what happens when you translate things. :roll:

sarongsong
2003-Dec-09, 08:33 AM
"...This is very worrying for the effects it could have on future generations," he said..."
The same "argument" was used against LSD, encouraging its adherents to proclaim their kids would therefore be "born high". Here's something "worrying" AND legal AND bad:
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/oct03_TenpennyP.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=471139

mike alexander
2003-Dec-09, 05:23 PM
Tuffel: This is one case where Google helped me more then PubMed. Searching on the researcher's name got me into what appears to be legit stuff, in the sense of real people at real conferences.

I think the translation/second language part contributes a lot to the 'fakey' sound of the quotes. I still don't know where the researcher is 'coming from', if you catch my drift.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-10, 03:19 AM
For things like this I avoid google or yahoo or insert your favorite search engine simply because the amount of garbage out there that is passed off as being legit. I like Pubmed, ejournals, et al because they only pull the peer reveiwed journals. I guess this menas though this time I will have to brave the world of google....if I don't come back know I did not die in vain... :wink:

tuffel999
2003-Dec-10, 03:40 AM
"
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=471139

This particular story is partially right but it is not anything new. Doctors and drug companies have known this for years.....there are reasons why there are a variety of cholesterol drugs available, a variety of asthma medicines, and a a whole bunch of antibiotics. The part about this that is not right is the way it frames these ideas. First, a drug may well on work in 50% of patients but there may well be 5 drugs for that condition, therby making a successful course of treatment available to ALMOST everyone. The other part that is misleading is that many of the things listed are multifaceted problems. For instance:
# Alzheimer's: 30
The mechanism for this disease is not even completly worked out yet so I would say 30% is a damn good start.

# Asthma: 60
This disease ha many genetic and environmental causes not all of which can be treated with our current level of technology.

# Depression (SSRI): 62
Brain chemistry is VERY complicated and this is a very hard area to work in because of the multitude of origins of this particular problem. Also there is a limit ot what can be done in the brain before you start damaging it.

# Diabetes: 57
This is due to a number of factors. The biggest being Type 2 diabetes which is insulin insensitivity. Once the body starts to become insensitive to iinsulin no matter how much is added back into the system it doesn't help. This is also MANY times the patients fault. Diabetics have to maintain a strict diet but many do not. I say most because Type 1 diabetes accounts for less than 10% of cases. The difference now. Type 1 diabetes is a autoimmune disease that results in the destruction of beta cells. Type 2 diabetes is a life style disease and results from insulin insensitivity in the body.

# Hepatits C (HCV): 47
Ahhh....here we are dealing with a tricky virus. HCV like HIV is a retrovirus a group of virus that forms as RNA rather than DNA and are notoriusly sloppy replicators allowing them to mutate very quickly and dodge drug treatment.

# Incontinence: 40
Ummmm....this is a messy one so I am going ot avoid it(sorry had ot say it)

# Oncology: 25
This is another one that is the nature of the beast. So many forms from so many sources and by definition mutagenic so it is a b**** to treat. 25% here is an odd number since if only 25% of people with cancer actually were helped by drugs then I have a feeling there would be a much larger panic over this. I would like to see the data on this one(real data from medical journals).

These are just a few of the ones listed that I felt could be tackled quickly. All of these have lower than hoped for treatments when only 1 of the many drugs available for each is looked at. That is why there are multiple drugs out there. If there was one wonder drug available right now you would only see 1 on the market. Also, as much as people seem to hate drug companies they do not hold back drugs to keep people from being cured to make more money. If a drug company came out with 1 drug that worked to cure say....cancer in every case in every person think of the money they would make. This isn't counter productive for them because new people get cancer everyday. This would be their gold mine situation.

FP
2003-Dec-10, 02:20 PM
Response rates

Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent

Alzheimer's: 30
Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
Asthma: 60
Cardiac Arrythmias: 60
Depression (SSRI): 62
Diabetes: 57
Hepatits C (HCV): 47
Incontinence: 40
Migraine (acute): 52
Migraine (prophylaxis)50
Oncology: 25
Rheumatoid arthritis50
Schizophrenia: 60




(From the abouve referenced article.)

Speaking as someone who has been in the front line trenches treating these diseases for the last 20 years, the remarkable thing is that the numbers are so high!

In the early eighties, there was not a satisfactory treatment for migraine headaches other than pain relief. There was no effective treatment for Alzheimer's dementia. Asthma treatments sometimes caused more problems than they helped. Depression treatments were problematic at best.

We had not even isolated the Hepatitis C virus (it was called "non-A non-B" at the time.) Type II Diabetes treatment was a nightmare -- the medications were toxic and very hard to regulate.

Schizophrenia treatments consisted of sedating the patient.

Rheumatoid arthritis could be treated with aspirin derivatives which didn't help much or with gold injections (yes, gold is a toxic metal -- the idea was to poison the immune system.)

The Cox-2 anti-inflammatory drugs being at 80% is a remarkable acheivement. These drugs (Celebrex, Bextra, Vioxx, and to some degree Mobic) allow multitudes of patients who could not tolerate the older NSAIDs (Non-Steriodal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) to get relief from their osteoarthritis symptoms.

The new medications for incontinence are a godsend for many people.

I too would question the figure for oncology, but don't forget that chemotherapy is just one of the big three treatments for cancer (radiation and surgery.)

Doctors know that no one drug works for everyone. But we have great sucess treating these conditions anyway by using alternates, combinations, lifestyle modifications, and so on.

This article is just another case of taking things out of context and making them seem much worse that they really are.

captain swoop
2003-Dec-10, 02:36 PM
Harping back to coloidal silver

http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/rose1.html

for a specific case

sarongsong
2003-Dec-10, 06:39 PM
...gold injections (yes, gold is a toxic metal...
Thanks, FP, for elaborating. Do you know what form of gold these injections were comprised of?

mike alexander
2003-Dec-10, 07:46 PM
Until FP gets back, I can guess either aurothioglucose or gold thiomalate. In each case, the gold is bound to the sulfhydryl group on the molecule.

FP
2003-Dec-11, 04:19 PM
You're right, Mike -- they both have been and are used.


Gold salts.
Parenteral gold salts. Gold sodium thiomalate and aurothioglucose Intramuscular: single dose of 10 mg, followed by 25 mg 1 week later to test for sensitivity. Maintenance therapy is 25 to 50 mg weekly. If there is no improvement with a cumulative dose of 1 or 2 g or if toxicity develops, therapy should be discontinued.
Oral:Auranofin 3 to 6 mg PO QD. Diarrhea is a common side effect. Monthly urinalysis and CBC counts should be performed.
Side effects.
Common. Pruritic skin rash, mouth ulcers, transient leukopenia, eosinophilia, diarrhea (oral). Treatment can sometimes be temporarily halted and then restarted at lower doses, and side effects may not recur, but rash must be allowed to clear because it can lead to an exfoliative dermatitis.
Transient proteinuria in 3% to 10% of patients. Usually requires only cessation of treatment until the urine clears.
Less common. Thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, agranulocytosis, and aplastic anemia. Usually responds to stopping drug. Gold-chelating agent (dimercaprol) can be used if response is not fast enough.




http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/familymedicine/FPHandbook/Chapter07/02-7.html

Glossary:
Exfoliative dermatitis = your skin falls off in large chunks
Leukopenia = decreased white blood cells (all types)
Proteinuria = protein in the urine, indicates kidney damage
Parenteral = not by mouth, ie injection or IV
Thrombocytopenia = decreased platelet (blood-clotting cells) Can lead to bleeding
Pancytopenia = all types of blood cells decreased
Agranulocytosis = decreased numbers of a specific type of white blood cell, and leave one in danger of infection
Aplastic anemia = shut down of manufacture of all types of blood cells

I believe that these are side effects of most if not all toxic metals. Makes me want to run out and get a big supply of colliodal silver!

BTW, don't let the term "salt" throw you. In a complex chemical environment like the body, colloidal silver will combine chemically to form compounds including "salts". Gold is given as a "salt" to aid in its absorption.

Gold is not given lightly. Close monitoring must be maintained.
I am glad to leave its use to those who are highly trained for it.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-11, 05:25 PM
Gold is given as a "salt" to aid in its absorption.
Another mistake.

FP
2003-Dec-11, 05:28 PM
A mistake to give gold as a salt, or a mistake in that gold is not given as a salt?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-11, 05:56 PM
So what is diarrhea (oral)? Other than something I could accuse some people who ramble on and on at lectures of having.

FP
2003-Dec-11, 06:24 PM
So what is diarrhea (oral)? Other than something I could accuse some people who ramble on and on at lectures of having.

That refers to an effect seen when gold is given orally, as opposed to parentally.

I know lecturers who could use Immodium for the mouth also!

sarongsong
2003-Dec-12, 05:00 AM
A mistake to give gold as a salt, or a mistake in that gold is not given as a salt?---FP
If I made the decision to take gold, it would be in its purest colloidal or ionic form; 24K + distilled water.

If there was one wonder drug available right now...

"...the Nuclear Receptor allows our bodies to process all forms of toxins and poisons..."
http://www.pyradyne.com/ #-o

tuffel999
2003-Dec-12, 05:03 AM
All I have ot say is a direct quote from the front page "consider the Receptor and the Projector. They have form. They have divine mathematical projections that occupy space wihin time. Both have protrusions within this veil of illusion we call the third dimension.

...Receptors-Projectors (a new dimension) was now possible: that of the fourth ..the doorway to time itself!"


Yeah you can't even believe this crap can you?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-12, 05:05 AM
Here is another goodie " Pleiadean influence has been a prominent factor in the creation of many Pyradyne products. The Flame Thrower stands out probably more than any of our other products. It has proven itself as a tremendous device for protection of human life and healing powers and the first time it was utilized as a life-and-death experience!

Pyradyne is not the only company that has benefited from Pleiadean or Extraterrestrial influence. As early as the 1950s, scientists at Sony and General Electric produced the first transistors, which are responsible for today's computer industry."

http://www.pyradyne.com/artc-flamethrower.html

Hahahaha.........I finally figured out sarong your are pulling our leg each time. Wow do I feel dense now arguing with you all this time
#-o

sarongsong
2003-Dec-12, 05:44 AM
Hahahaha.........
Got'cha! Did you check out Dr. Bell's bio, tho:
"...at age 14, he was not only working at the University of Michigan on nuclear energy projects..."
http://www.pyradyne.com/fred.htm

tuffel999
2003-Dec-12, 04:00 PM
Ohhh man you have gotten me so wound out at tmes I had censor my own posts................but I got had I can admit it. I guess it should have been obvious on some of those posts. :oops: #-o

FP
2003-Dec-12, 06:35 PM
I guess I'll have to blame you, sarong, when my back acts up because I'm walking around with one leg longer than the other! :D

tuffel999
2003-Dec-12, 09:08 PM
Ok so then back to real bad medicine......

Humphrey
2003-Dec-14, 09:45 PM
ROFL. I was watching tv this morning and i saw a very funny infomercial. This "Doctor" (of what i don't know, he was just doctor [last name i forgot]) was spouting his companies new product that will revolutionize medicin.
He said that everytthing we eat and drink is making out body too acidic. He gave the metaphor of acid rain on a metal roof. It east it away. He said that is the same thing the acidity of our blood is doing to our organs. He said thing like coke, foods, and even water (yes water) is way to acidid. What his product does is make out blood alkaline in character. Thus no virus, bacteria or any bad things can survive. He actually said you will never get sick or cancer no matter what you do if you take his drugs.

This is just bad science all around.

I foud a website supporting this guys product and theories: http://www.supremegreensstore.com/

tuffel999
2003-Dec-15, 02:48 AM
ROFL. I was watching tv this morning and i saw a very funny infomercial. This "Doctor" (of what i don't know, he was just doctor [last name i forgot]) was spouting his companies new product that will revolutionize medicin.
He said that everytthing we eat and drink is making out body too acidic. He gave the metaphor of acid rain on a metal roof. It east it away. He said that is the same thing the acidity of our blood is doing to our organs. He said thing like coke, foods, and even water (yes water) is way to acidid. What his product does is make out blood alkaline in character. Thus no virus, bacteria or any bad things can survive. He actually said you will never get sick or cancer no matter what you do if you take his drugs.

This is just bad science all around.

I foud a website supporting this guys product and theories: http://www.supremegreensstore.com/

That is pretty funny since blood acidity is VERY strictly regulated by your body. There is a reason why you find bicarbonate in the blood it is a buffer. Sheesh. Also the ph of coke is something in the range of 5.5 while stomach acid is around 2. The ph scale is log based so that is a huge difference. Ohhhhh no the coke is going to eat me ahhhhhhhhh :wink:

sarongsong
2003-Dec-15, 03:41 AM
Ok so then back to real bad medicine......
In the money-conquers-all category:
"The [Lilly] documents clearly demonstrate that Lilly's thimerosal product, the mercury-based vaccine preservative implicated in a number of recent lawsuits as causing neurological injury to infants, was known as early as April 1930 to be dangerous...."
http://mercola.com/2002/mar/30/mercury_vaccine.htm

tuffel999
2003-Dec-15, 04:05 AM
I can one up you sarong....mercury was known to be dangerous over 150 years ago. Mad hatters disease to be exact. It is kind of like the tobacco industry sitting on the data they had for the last 60 years. Although in this case I don't see the document on that page they seem to allude to. The one item dated 1930 says it was safe and used in patients suffering from my favorite(I work with) bug the meningococcas.

Sammy
2003-Dec-15, 05:57 AM
I strobgly disagree with the above 2 posts. The Mercola websiter has all the hallmarks of woo wwo-dom and is promoting its own products.

Comparing Mad Hatter's syndrome with mercury levels in vaccines is totally invidious -- like comapring a chest X-ray to being at Hiroshima!

Research cited by FDA, and also referenced at Quackwatch.Com -- which has no interest in peddling ANYTHING and takes no money from the drug industry, state unequivocally that no research shows any significant adverse effects from mercury preservatives in vaccines. Lawsuits have NO connection to science, and often, NO connection to reality. The mercury connection is pushed heavily on GLP, where the kooks claim that the govt. is purposely poisoning people with "..mercury laced vaccines.."

To avoid any possibility of danger from ideosyncratic reactions, the FDA started a program in 1997 to have manufactuers reduce or eliminate mercuric preservatives, esp. in pediatric vaccines. By 2001, the FDA stated that only trace levels of mercury could be found in pediatric vaccines.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-15, 06:40 AM
...Quackwatch.Com -- which has no interest in peddling ANYTHING...
"Publications for Sale...Send orders to Quackwatch, P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105..."
http://www.quackwatch.org/* *

sarongsong
2003-Dec-15, 06:52 AM
...my favorite (I work with) bug meningococcas.
I trust mercury is no longer used on it. How big is it these days and how do you work with it?
"...The bacteria most common among college students is called meningococcas and is spread quickly through bodily fluid contact...Antibiotics are the usual treatment...a vaccine has become recently available for those at highest risk...."
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/20/yh.00.html
(bottom of page)

tuffel999
2003-Dec-15, 12:59 PM
...my favorite (I work with) bug meningococcas.
I trust mercury is no longer used on it. How big is it these days and how do you work with it?
"...The bacteria most common among college students is called meningococcas and is spread quickly through bodily fluid contact...Antibiotics are the usual treatment...a vaccine has become recently available for those at highest risk...."
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/20/yh.00.html
(bottom of page)

Mercury wasn't used as a treatment for these patients it was used on dying patients who couldn't be treated to establish a toxicity profile. I work on antibiotic resistance mediated by an efflux pump system that eliminates antibiotics, detergeants, and bile salts from the bacteria.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-15, 01:07 PM
I strobgly disagree with the above 2 posts. The Mercola websiter has all the hallmarks of woo wwo-dom and is promoting its own products.

Comparing Mad Hatter's syndrome with mercury levels in vaccines is totally invidious -- like comapring a chest X-ray to being at Hiroshima!

I wasn't comparing the two I was pointing out that the effects of mercury were known way before Eli Lily was ever born. Sheesh.


Research cited by FDA, and also referenced at Quackwatch.Com -- which has no interest in peddling ANYTHING and takes no money from the drug industry, state unequivocally that no research shows any significant adverse effects from mercury preservatives in vaccines. Lawsuits have NO connection to science, and often, NO connection to reality. The mercury connection is pushed heavily on GLP, where the kooks claim that the govt. is purposely poisoning people with "..mercury laced vaccines.."

To avoid any possibility of danger from ideosyncratic reactions, the FDA started a program in 1997 to have manufactuers reduce or eliminate mercuric preservatives, esp. in pediatric vaccines. By 2001, the FDA stated that only trace levels of mercury could be found in pediatric vaccines.

Now while I go by the government regulations and believe most of the FDA 's data on things it isn't beyond their scope or anyone else's to be wrong. Also at times our goverment hasn't been so ethical in medical trials or reliable. Tuskegee and syphillis anyone? Or maybe the radiation studies that were conducted on patients in the 1940's through 1960's that were horribly invasive and not really directed at treating their conditions?

Sammy
2003-Dec-15, 08:03 PM
I certainly won't defend stuff like the Tuskeegee or rad studies, but they reflected the mores of the time. There is no reason to suspect that FDA is now lying abt mercury content of vaccines.

Saraongsong, Quackwatch, as you know, is NOT selling/advocating any MEDICAL product, and is a non-profit operation. Their sale of publications is NOT relevant to this discussion.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-15, 10:30 PM
Quackwatch, as you know...
Even though Barrett and company have been losing in court, they (and their Canadian cohorts) keep pushing the agenda of the pharmaceutical companies.
"...When the self-named "Quackbusters" stumbled around to find a derisive name to call their victims, they picked the word "Quack," without ever bothering to discover it's origins. Its original meaning, from Europe, comes from the term "quacksalver" which was used to describe Dentists who were dumb enough to use mercury (a poison) as fillings for teeth....you'll find that HE IS IN FAVOR of mercury (amalgam) tooth fillings..."
http://dorway.com/lastquak.txt

Sammy
2003-Dec-15, 10:55 PM
Well Sarongsong, this makes several more things you're dead wrong about.

Quackwatch has NEVER lost a case in court. They sued a quack for libel and the judge chucked the case because he ruled that statements on the web could not be construed as libel!

Mercury in amalgams is not a poison, and NO reputable medical authority contends that it is. I don't know how you can claim that while you ingest silver, which NO reputable medical authority thinks has any beneficial effects.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-15, 11:05 PM
http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/alerts/970626.html

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg46.html#bookmark01

Methyl Mercury is more dangerous agent since the form it is in is more easily absorbed by the body. Now while both amalgam and normal metallic mercury aren't horribly dangerous I am not going to be crack open some old thermometers and downing them. What I mean by this is, I understand the dangers possed by mercury in it's various forms but as a rule I am going to avoid all forms just to be safe.


Edited: For horrible spelling

swansont
2003-Dec-15, 11:16 PM
Now while both amalkgam and normal metallic mercury aren't horribly dangerous I am not going to be crack open some old thermometers and downing them. What I mean by this is, I understand the dangers possed by mercury in it's various forms but as a rule I am going ot avoid all forms just to be safe.

Bananas are radioactive. So are people, for that matter. Will you avoid them, just to be safe? :roll:

tuffel999
2003-Dec-15, 11:23 PM
Bananas are radioactive. So are people, for that matter. Will you avoid them, just to be safe? :roll:

Well of course...... 8-[

Actually I work with P32, but it is necessary chugging a big mercury thermometer isn't. Proper Perspective Please.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-15, 11:52 PM
...I don't know how you can claim that while you ingest
silver, which NO reputable medical authority thinks has any beneficial effects...---Sammy
That was a referenced "claim".
I suppose these babies dosed themselves:
"Silver nitrate opthalmic preparation was once used to prevent gonococcal eye infection in newborns. Since silver nitrate may irritate the newborn's eyes, it is not recommended anymore. Erythromycin ointment, which is not irritative, has replaced silver nitrate nowadays."
http://forums.obgyn.net/pregnancy-birth/P-B.0103/1874.html
How about an FDA-approved human use for silver:
http://burncare.net/
Let's see the pharm giants top that!

tuffel999
2003-Dec-16, 12:31 AM
...I don't know how you can claim that while you ingest
silver, which NO reputable medical authority thinks has any beneficial effects...---Sammy
That was a referenced "claim".
I suppose these babies dosed themselves:
"Silver nitrate opthalmic preparation was once used to prevent gonococcal eye infection in newborns. Since silver nitrate may irritate the newborn's eyes, it is not recommended anymore. Erythromycin ointment, which is not irritative, has replaced silver nitrate nowadays."
http://forums.obgyn.net/pregnancy-birth/P-B.0103/1874.html
How about an FDA-approved human use for silver:
http://burncare.net/
Let's see the pharm giants top that!

I think you missed the idea sarong. He meant taking silver orally. Topically there are a few select current or former uses for silver compounds.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-16, 03:31 AM
...which NO reputable medical authority thinks has any beneficial effects.---Sammy

He meant taking silver orally---tuffel999
Oh, pardon moi, you know my problems with English...

"Q/A: SARS Prevention by Dr. Wright, M.D., F.A.C.E.P
...At the very first sign of any symptoms continue taking the above products and also take one teaspoon of Argentyn-23 every twenty minutes for 4 to 6 doses, then 1 tsp. three times daily."..
http://www.gsmcweb.com/Sars%20Prevention.htm

"Argentyn 23...laboratory produced, premium quality colloidal silver...is only available to medical doctors ( MD's )..."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X56F351D6
Let's see now, if one white crow is found...it must be a duck, right?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-16, 03:40 AM
Actually I should have said I believe he meant......I can't say for sure.


Now about this product from their page "for immune support provided by thymus, astragalus, and echinacea."

Let's play which doesn't fit. (Hint it is thymus since it is an organ not an herb. Sheesh.)

Edit: Hit submit before I finished putting a sentence together sheesh!

Edit 2: Spelling.

Sammy
2003-Dec-16, 03:58 AM
Teufel had it right re silver ingestion, as you should have, since we have both posted on the colloidal silver issue several times.

Sarongsong then wrote


times daily."..
http://www.gsmcweb.com/Sars%20Prevention.htm

"Argentyn 23...laboratory produced, premium quality colloidal silver...is only available to medical doctors ( MD's )..."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X56F351D6

I (and I think most people who post/read this site) are not interested with citations to woo woo sites. You need to either learn more about medicine/physiology or develop a better critical facility. The latter site noted above SELLS colloidal silver. Do you expect them to see it's not good for you? The former site has sufficient woo woo content to turm me off immediately. Putting the silver nonsense aside, these guys are advocating CHELATION THERAPY for arterial blockage. This approach has NO CREDITABILITY in the medical profession and has been specifically rejected by the American Heart Association. The only place in medicine for chelation therapy is in extreme cases of heavy metal poisoning.

I stick with my earlier statement re silver. No reputable medical authority supports ingestion of silver in any form for any purpose

tuffel999
2003-Dec-16, 04:05 AM
Teufel had it right re silver ingestion, as you should have, since we have both posted on the colloidal silver issue several times.



Someone figured out where my name came from.........figured i had disfigured it enough to keep people off my back about it's meaning. Hmmmmm..........

P.S.- and yes I know it is childish but I have used it on the web since I was 9.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-16, 04:07 AM
Edit 2: Spelling.
Seems to be a common affliction...perhaps the good doctor was attempting "thyme"---can't speak for her, either.
Maybe Simon & Garfunkel were onto something, with their "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme", after all:
"A NEW STUDY BACKS UP CENTURIES OLD THEORIES THAT SAGE CAN IMPROVE YOUR MEMORY..."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G172622D6
"...Noting that Chinese parsley (cilantro) increases the excretion of mercury, lead, and aluminum via urine, the researchers decided to try a combination of antibiotic therapy and Chinese parsley in patients..."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B282142D6

tuffel999
2003-Dec-16, 04:08 AM
There is no reason to suspect that FDA is now lying abt mercury content of vaccines.



I wasn't critizing their take on mercury levels in vaccines I just keep in my awareness that sometimes people make mistakes. Or intentionally harm others but in this case I believe their assesment is correct.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-16, 04:09 AM
Edit 2: Spelling.
Seems to be a common affliction...perhaps the good doctor was attempting "thyme"---can't speak for her, either.


I am not sure since thyme and thymus are a bit different. On a standard QWERTY keyboard s is pretty far from u.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-16, 04:20 AM
The former site has sufficient woo woo content to turm me off immediately.
Well, let's compare your credentials to Dr. Wright's, shall we?
http://www.gsmcweb.com/Eileen.htm
You keep making absolute statements, then object when ONE exception is mentioned. Please define "medical authority", for instance. You say quackwatch never lost a case, then proceed to say their case was thrown out by the judge. Define "lost", please.
And as for American competence in medicine, wasn't penicillin used in Britain for FIFTEEN years before the Americans caught on? How many lives did THAT cost?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-16, 04:29 AM
Define "lost", please.


Well lost depends on how the case was dismissed. If it was without prejudice it can be refiled and usually indicates a paperwork error. However, I am not familiar with the case so I don't know on this one for sure.

swansont
2003-Dec-16, 12:22 PM
You say quackwatch never lost a case, then proceed to say their case was thrown out by the judge. Define "lost", please.


The cases with which I am familiar were not lost or dismissed on science merits. The disposition of the case is not an endorsement of the science. Because of the status of the "medicine" involved, the burden of proof was on the complainants to show that the remedies were ineffective or dangerous. As opposed to the pharmaceutical industry, the manufacturers of homeopathic and herbal remedies are under no legal compulsion to show their compounds are effective or safe, only that they sell what they cllaim they are selling, AFAIK.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-16, 04:21 PM
And as for American competence in medicine, wasn't penicillin used in Britain for FIFTEEN years before the Americans caught on? How many lives did THAT cost?

No. Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. He named the substance penicillin in 1929. It wasn't until 1939 that Dr. Howard Florey at Oxford University was able to demonstrate penicillin's ability to kill bacteria.* The British could not produce enough penicillin for clinical trials on humans and turned to the United States for help. In July 1941 Howard Florey came to the U.S. with a small amount of penicillin. By November 1941 yields of penicillin had increased 10 times. In 1943, the required clinical trials were performed.

This timeline was borrowed liberally but not directly from my freshman biology book. So if anyone sat on the discovery it was the British from 1929 to 1939. But they didn't the problem was a lack of technology not a lack of wanting.

Sammy
2003-Dec-16, 06:19 PM
Other posters have answered your questions, which were not relevant to the discussion anyway.

I don't need to compare anyone's credentials or engage in childish games about defining "medical authority." If the gentleman is selling chelation therapy for arterial schelerosis, he is either uninformed or a crook, or both.

For your education, extratcted from the Am. Heart Assoc. website (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3000843);


Questions and Answers About Chelation Therapy


For more than30 years, people with fatty buildups of plaque in their arteries (atherosclerosis) may have heard about a “miracle cure” called chelation (pronounced “ke-LA'shun”) therapy. But you may not know that the American Heart Association and other medical and scientific groups have spoken out against this treatment

Can chelation therapy be dangerous?
EDTA isn’t totally safe as a drug. There’s a real danger of kidney failure. (renal tubular necrosis). EDTA can also cause bone marrow depression, shock, low blood pressure (hypotension), convulsions, disturbances of regular heart rhythm (cardiac arrhythmias), allergic-type reactions and respiratory arrest.

In fact, a number of deaths in the United States have been linked with chelation therapy. Also, some people are on dialysis because of kidney failure caused, at least in part, by chelation therapy.

The American Heart Association is concerned that some people who rely on this therapy may delay undergoing proven therapies like drugs or surgery until it’s too late. This is the added danger of relying on an unproven “miracle cure.”

And finally, something from the FTC which your good Dr. ought to be aware of:

Medical Association Settles False Advertising Charges
Over Promotion of "Chelation Therapy"


The American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it made unsubstantiated and false advertising claims that non-surgical, EDTA "chelation therapy" is effective in treating atherosclerosis, and that the effectiveness of the therapy has been proven by scientific studies. The proposed settlement would prohibit ACAM from representing, in advertising, that chelation therapy is an effective treatment for atherosclerosis without possessing and relying upon competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the representation. In addition, ACAM would be prohibited from making any representation about the efficacy or comparative efficacy of chelation therapy for any disease of the human circulatory system unless supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-16, 06:33 PM
I don't need to compare anyone's credentials or engage in childish games about defining "medical authority."
Fine.

If the gentleman is selling chelation therapy for arterial schelerosis, he is either uninformed or a crook, or both
He's a researcher, not a salesman, sharing what he's found---how else is progress accomplished?

Musashi
2003-Dec-16, 06:53 PM
It looks like the Great Smokies Medical Center is providing treatement, not research. They advocate the use of Chelation Therapy. Well, I'll have to add them to the list of people full of crap.

Sammy
2003-Dec-16, 08:42 PM
I don't need to compare anyone's credentials or engage in childish games about defining "medical authority."
Fine.

If the gentleman is selling chelation therapy for arterial schelerosis, he is either uninformed or a crook, or both
He's a researcher, not a salesman, sharing what he's found---how else is progress accomplished?

Do you not READ the sites you quote or do you have a comprehension problem? What business do you think the good Dr. is engaged in?


The first of two new medical advances we are using at Great Smokies Medical Center is the administration of the drug ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), in the form of a rectal suppository. Great Smokies Medical Center physicians have prescribed EDTA for the past 22 years intravenously (IV), more commonly known to many as Chelation Therapy. This change in the route of administration of EDTA from IV to rectal makes Chelation Therapy possible for those whose distance from a chelating physician, lack of available time, or the expense of therapy, travel and time off work to do so were prohibitive. Now EDTA can be taken daily in the convenience and privacy of one's home

The above is from the description of their treatment for blocked arteries, but the entire site is FULL of woo woo remedies.

FP
2003-Dec-16, 10:20 PM
From the Great Smokies Medical Center website:


Another study of 77 patients examined an off-label use of EDTA, coronary artery disease, using a three month duration of treatment. [All uses of EDTA are considered off-label uses except for lead toxicity, calcinosis (excess calcium in the blood), and digitalis toxicity, and are considered controversial and experimental by most physicians.] UltraFast CT Scan of the heart before and after treatment was chosen as the yardstick for measuring responses to treatment as it is the most objective assessment tool to measure coronary artery calcification. An average 57.2% decrease in Artery Calcification Scores occurred after three months of treatment. Fourteen of those patients showed 100% reduction of their Coronary Artery Calcification Scores. Some patients at GSMC have reported experiencing symptomatic relief as early as the first week of their treatment program.


It is theorized that the inflammatory immune response to the presence of the bacteria, and not the bacteria itself, results in disease. The study results suggest that inflammation leads to autoimmune processes that in turn contribute to arteriosclerosis. It is of interest to know that all participants in the study referred to earlier involving 77 patients with coronary artery disease were prescribed tetracycline, an antibiotic that treats nanobacteria infections, in addition to EDTA suppositories.


So the study really studied nothing. Did the EDTA do anything, or was it the tetracycline? Who can tell if either did anything? No one in a study designed with two variables (EDTA and antibiotic.)

Where, pray tell, is the evidence that reducing calcium "un-plugs" coronary arteries?

What's with the "100% reduction" in the calcium scores anyway? It all went away in 14 subjects? Did their blockages?

I notice that they do not provide a reference for their findings either.

For more information on Ultra-fast (or electron beam) CT try

http://www.acc.org/clinical/consensus/electron/dirIndex.htm

which is the official position paper by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

In the executive summary they point out that the degree of calcification of the coronary arteries does not correlate well with the degree of actual blockage of the artery.

Also,

http://www.mercola.com/2000/sept/24/ct_scans.htm

is a remarkably blunt and straightforward examination of the subject of EBCT.

In my opinion, any MD who prescribes therapies not shown to be safe and effective in good double-blinded studies is needlessly endangering his or her patients.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-16, 10:25 PM
Do you not READ the sites you quote or do you have a comprehension problem?
Sorry, thought you were referring to:

"...Noting that Chinese parsley (cilantro) increases the excretion of mercury, lead, and aluminum via urine, the researchers decided to try a combination of antibiotic therapy and Chinese parsley in patients..."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B282142D6
as that was my only reference to chelation.
No, I don't read an entire site I reference, and I doubt many who also cite references do. My topic with you was CS, not chelation.
Dr. Wright recommended Argyn 23, so I checked her bio---yes, she IS indeed a practising doctor---which obviously does not meet your criteria for a "reputable medical authority", and included a link to its manufacturer simply to clarify what it was claimed to be, NOT for further endorsement, as you took it to be.

Musashi
2003-Dec-16, 10:54 PM
I think she would be much more reputable if she didn't endorse chelation.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-17, 12:05 AM
In my opinion, any MD who prescribes therapies not shown to be safe and effective in good double-blinded studies is needlessly endangering his or her patients.
Excellent point, FP. Let's say, for whatever reason, some rich eccentric offers financial backing to resolve the CS issue.
What are the necessary steps to follow?

Sammy
2003-Dec-17, 06:06 AM
Sarongsong wrote


No, I don't read an entire site I reference, and I doubt many who also cite references do. My topic with you was CS, not chelation

You ought to do your homework better. You offered these folks (including Dr Wright) as authorities. Their site is a morass of quackery, not just on the chelation issue. Possessing an MD is not an issue; there are MDs who are incompetent and quacks, and who are guilty of massive malpractice.

Here are some docs doing chelation;


Kenneth Hough, of Bellbowrie, Queensland has filed a $250,000 lawsuit against Dr. Lin Sinnathamby and the hospital where Sinnathamby was employed. The suit charges that:

In December 1996 and January 1997, when Hough was 55 years old, Sinnathamby falsely promised that chelation therapy would clean out his arteries and make him feel generally more energetic.
Six treatments were administered despite the fact that Hough did not display any medically recognized indication for them.
During the last treatment, Hough's heart stopped beating. Although he was resuscitated, he suffered a heart attack and was left with permanent damage to his heart.


The survivors of Susan Alexander, a 56-year-old woman who died in 2002, are suing Progressive Medical Group (PMG), several of its staff members, and Metametrix (a laboratory that offers nonstandard tests. The suit accuses the defendants of negligence, fraud, racketeering, and wrongful death. According to the complaint, Ms. Alexander's heart stopped beating during chelation therapy for alleged lead poisoning that had been diagnosed with a fraudulent test.

You STILL have not provided ONE reference from a REPUTABLE source not engaged in the sale of the product showing ANY scientific merit in the ingestion of colloidal silver. There is massive evidence imputing risk, but nothing supporting benefit.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-17, 07:26 AM
There is massive evidence imputing risk
"Imputing" is not confirmation; it simply means "charging", or "ascribing to", according to my Webster's dictionary.
Where is this "massive evidence" against ingesting correctly prepared colloidal silver?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-17, 05:48 PM
There is massive evidence imputing risk
"Imputing" is not confirmation; it simply means "charging", or "ascribing to", according to my Webster's dictionary.
Where is this "massive evidence" against ingesting correctly prepared colloidal silver?

Be careful sarong.......since this can easily be flipped back on you to prove its benefits (ignoring any other possible negative side effects that have been established) from reputable and peer reviewed sources.

Also, when you pull people's leg sometimes they bite back( I know you got me worked up a few times).

sarongsong
2003-Dec-17, 07:27 PM
"Professor Ronald J Gibbs was the director of the Center for
Colloidal Science at the University of Delaware between 1981
and May, 2000. He has published over 85 reviewed journal
articles and five technical reports, edited fourteen books and
presented over 60 talks at national and international meetings."
http://www.silver-colloids.com/
Read it and weep!

tuffel999
2003-Dec-17, 07:40 PM
"Professor Ronald J Gibbs was the director of the University of Delaware at the University of Delaware between 1981
and May, 2000. He has published over 85 reviewed journal
articles and five technical reports, edited fourteen books and
presented over 60 talks at national and international meetings."
http://www.silver-colloids.com/
Read it and weep!

Not exactly weeping. Here is the link to U of Deleware.....uhhhh is what I said.

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/ccolloid.html

And here is his the pubmed search for Gibbs RJ(all 12 entries):

1: Bennett-Guerrero E, McIntosh TJ, Barclay GR, Snyder DS, Gibbs RJ, Mythen MG, Poxton IR. Related Articles, Links
Preparation and preclinical evaluation of a novel liposomal complete-core lipopolysaccharide vaccine.
Infect Immun. 2000 Nov;68(11):6202-8.
PMID: 11035726 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]2: Nichol DK, Gibbs RJ. Related Articles, Links
Development of performance indicators in health care management.
World Hosp. 1985 Nov;21(4):11-3. No abstract available.
PMID: 10276025 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]3: Rousseau JM, Gibbs RJ. Related Articles, Links
A model to assist planning the provision of hospital services.
J Oper Res Soc. 1981;32(6):445-56. No abstract available.
PMID: 10251496 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]4: Gibbs RJ. Related Articles, Links
The use of a strategic planning model for Health and Personal Social Services.
J Oper Res Soc. 1978 Sep;29(9):875-83. No abstract available.
PMID: 10238034 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]5: FRYAR AJ, GIBBS RJ. Related Articles, Links
BOVINE MUSCLE PROTEINS. IV. PREPARATION OF MYOSIN AND ACTOMYOSIN.
Experientia. 1963 Sep 15;19:493-4. No abstract available.
PMID: 14087530 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]6: FRYAR AJ, GIBBS RJ. Related Articles, Links
Bovine muscle proteins. IL. Heterogeneity in H-meromyosin preparations.
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1960 May;88:177-8. No abstract available.
PMID: 13825476 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]7: GIBBS RJ, CHANUTIN A. Related Articles, Links
Albumin from heated human plasma. V. Denaturation kinetics: influence of ionic strength.
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1959 Jul;83(1):320-6. No abstract available.
PMID: 13662019 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]8: TIMASHEFF SN, GIBBS RJ. Related Articles, Links
The state of plasma albumin in acid pH.
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1957 Aug;70(2):547-60. No abstract available.
PMID: 13459410 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]9: GIBBS RJ. Related Articles, Links
Albumin from heated human plasma. III. Denaturation kinetics: influence of acetate ions.
Arch Biochem. 1954 Oct;52(2):340-7. No abstract available.
PMID: 13208258 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]10: GIBBS RJ. Related Articles, Links
Albumin from heated human plasma. II. Denaturation kinetics: influence of pH and temperature.
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1954 Jul;51(1):277-92. No abstract available.
PMID: 13181483 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]11: BIER M, TERMINIELLO L, DUKE JA, GIBBS RJ, NORD FF. Related Articles, Links
Investigations on proteins and polymers. X. Composition and fractionation of ovomucoid.
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1953 Dec;47(2):465-73. No abstract available.
PMID: 13114916 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]12: GIBBS RJ, TIMASHEFF SN, NORD FF. Related Articles, Links
Investigations on proteins and polymers. IX. Denaturation studies of egg albumin with aliphatic amines.
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1952 Sep;40(1):85-101. No abstract available.
PMID: 12997192 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]

tuffel999
2003-Dec-17, 07:41 PM
Ohh and the link for all research centers in 2000 at Deleware:

http://www.udel.edu/catalog/cat2001/facstaff/centers.html

sarongsong
2003-Dec-17, 07:52 PM
Not exactly weeping
Not exactly read it, either.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-17, 07:59 PM
Not exactly weeping
Not exactly read it, either.

Read what?

Sammy
2003-Dec-17, 08:52 PM
Sarongsong, spend less time playing with the dictionary and more time reading what is posted here and on the wacko web sites you insist on providing as authorities. All of us grown-ups know what impute means and how to use it.

The lab you cite is IN THE BUSINESS. Look at the links to the sites selling silver preps. They are promoting the use of silver, as is the booklet by Dr. Gibbs. It's nice that they cite his history of research and publishing. But did you LOOK at the post by Tufel? Do you understand what he is telling you? Nothing published by Gibbs in the professional literature has anything to do with colloidal silver and/or microbiology/physiology, which is what we are trying to discuss here. There is no reason to assume that he knows anymore about this topic than I, or anyone else posting here, does.

The link on the U. Del. website to the "Colloidal Research Center" is dead. A search of their whole web site on "colloidal silver" yields nothing. Dr. Gibbs is dead; maybe HE ingested too much silver.

I, and others, have posted numerous refs to established scientists citing the FACT that no one has demonstrated benefits from ingesting silver, and many have demonstared adverse effects. Dig 'em up again yourself; I'm done trying to educate you. If you want to persist and post more quack citations, go ahead. As far as I am concerned, and I think in the eyes of others who post here, you will have demonstated that you are only a malicious troll, not a person interested in a serious, factual, discussion.

Sammy
2003-Dec-17, 08:54 PM
Sarongsong, spend less time playing with the dictionary and more time reading what is posted here and on the wacko web sites you insist on providing as authorities. All of us grown-ups know what impute means and how to use it.

The lab you cite is IN THE BUSINESS. Look at the links to the sites selling silver preps. They are promoting the use of silver, as is the booklet by Dr. Gibbs. It's nice that they cite his history of research and publishing. But did you LOOK at the post by Tufel? Do you understand what he is telling you? Nothing published by Gibbs in the professional literature has anything to do with colloidal silver and/or microbiology/physiology, which is what we are trying to discuss here. There is no reason to assume that he knows anymore about this topic than I, or anyone else posting here, does.

The link on the U. Del. website to the "Colloidal Research Center" is dead. A search of their whole web site on "colloidal silver" yields nothing. Dr. Gibbs is dead; maybe HE ingested too much silver.

I, and others, have posted numerous refs to established scientists citing the FACT that no one has demonstrated benefits from ingesting silver, and many have demonstared adverse effects. Dig 'em up again yourself; I'm done trying to educate you. If you want to persist and post more quack citations, go ahead. As far as I am concerned, and I think in the eyes of others who post here, you will have demonstated that you are only a malicious troll, not a person interested in a serious, factual, discussion.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-17, 09:13 PM
It's nice that they cite his history of research and publishing. But did you LOOK at the post by Tufel? Do you understand what he is telling you? Nothing published by Gibbs in the professional literature has anything to do with colloidal silver and/or microbiology/physiology, which is what we are trying to discuss here. There is no reason to assume that he knows anymore about this topic than I, or anyone else posting here, does.

The link on the U. Del. website to the "Colloidal Research Center" is dead. A search of their whole web site on "colloidal silver" yields nothing.

Thanks for getting the reason for my posting the pubmed search, I thought it might not have been clear from the response I got after I posted it.

It is always an important thing to understand that great scientists in their field may be idiots when discussing other fields.

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Dec-17, 09:44 PM
It is always an important thing to understand that great scientists in their field may be idiots when discussing other fields.

Well I wouldn't call them idiots right off the bat, however there have been cases that can only be labeled as pitiful, such as the case of Linus Pauling and Vitamin C

[Editted for Clarity]

tuffel999
2003-Dec-18, 04:42 AM
It is always an important thing to understand that great scientists in their field may be idiots when discussing other fields.

Well I wouldn't call them idiots right off the bat, however there have been cases that can only be labeled as pitiful, such as the case of Linus Pauling and Vitamin C

[Editted for Clarity]

Maybe not idiots but you get the picture.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-18, 08:06 AM
The link on the U. Del. website to the "Colloidal Research Center" is dead. A search of their whole web site on "colloidal silver" yields nothing.
Well, duh-uh! Now I'm responsible for links I don't even post?
Good obit on Gibbs there, tho, thanks:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y337557D6
Had you bothered to read his "Silver Colloids-Do They Work?",
you would see HOW he employed scientific methods to answer his question, in a NON-COMMERCIAL treatise. But then, of course, it not being

professional literature,
why would you bother?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-18, 03:09 PM
The link on the U. Del. website to the "Colloidal Research Center" is dead. A search of their whole web site on "colloidal silver" yields nothing.
Well, duh-uh! Now I'm responsible for links I don't even post?


No but the point being made is that something is up wit htheir 'research'.

[quote]
Had you bothered to read his "Silver Colloids-Do They Work?",
you would see HOW he employed scientific methods to answer his question, in a NON-COMMERCIAL treatise. But then, of course, it not being
[quote]professional literature,
why would you bother?

Wether or not he employed the scientific method means absolutely NOTHING if the work is not peer reviewed and reproducable. That is the key here. I can use the scientific method all day long and get amazing results until a peer reviewer notices that I did something wrong in my methods and the work is totally unreproducable. This happens often in science that is why we do not trust work that has not stood the test of peer review and being reproducible. There are lists of times when people have claimed great break throughs only noone has ever been able to reproduce their work, so it really isn't a break through now is it. One of the best examples of all time is the cold fusion guys in Utah(?). Noone could reproduce their work because their 'break through' didn't exist. The work did not pass the test of being reproducible so ULTIMATELY it FAILED to adhere to the purpose of the scientific method.

Edit: I suck at typing some days. Sigh.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-18, 06:03 PM
...the point being made is that something is up wit htheir 'research'.
A phone call to UD reveals their Center for Colloidal Science no longer exists and that its link on their Website is an oversight and will be removed.

Wether or not he employed the scientific method means absolutely NOTHING if the work is not peer reviewed and reproducable. That is the key here.
Fair enough. Without access to the Search tools available to professionals, as a layman I have limited resources and often see only what advocates of CS have found and posted. Two of these,
one from Brigham Young University's Microbiology Dept. and one by Burgdorfer at NIH's Rocky Mountain Labs, come up with similar results, all being in vitro, indicating "reproducible" results:
http://www.csprosystems.com/BYU_Bacteria_Testing.html
http://members.tripod.com/boymarko1/dept__of_health.htm
IF these are indeed accurate representations of REAL testing, why hasn't the medical research community not done in vivo
studies? Or have they, and simply not published their findings?
This is the kind of situation that causes the general public to be suspicious and experiment on their own when approved medicines prove ineffective or fail. Even Reader's Digest gets into the act, demonstrating how one can safely ingest "the equivalent of 740 grains of free iodine", because it's in colloidal form:
http://www.robeysilver.com/Readers.htm
Again, why hasn't medicine done in vivo studies on CS?

Sammy
2003-Dec-18, 06:04 PM
Thanks, Tufel, for saving me the work!

And who knows? Maybe the whole world is wrong, and Dr. Gibbs is the ONLY one to know the "truth."

Naw..............

Sammy
2003-Dec-18, 06:32 PM
OK, Sarongsong, after your last post, I went back and read Dr. Gibbs' booklet all the way thru. Results? NADA. Nothing about ingesting colloidal silver. It's not very useful or original research either. The bacteriostatic effects of silver have been know and accepted for decades, if not more.

The new refs you post are all in vitro studies also. Why do you think people aren't doing in vivo studies? One is because there is no reason to think ingestion of colloidal silver has any benefits. The second is that there is KNOWN toxicity from such ingestion. Any scientifically valid research would involve witholding known beneficial drugs from ill people and giving them treatment KNOWN to be toxic and with NO demsontrated beneficial effects. Typically, animal research would precede human experimentation, but no one has seen fit to even bother with that. The colloidal silver scam companies are probably making enough money to fund an independant, reputable researcher -- but that's rather dangerous, isn't it? A reputable researcher would insist on publishing results. A negative finding might even stop credulous folks like you from buying.

And finally, thanks for the laugh. You're probably the first person on this Board to put forth the Reader's Digest as a scientific authority!!

tuffel999
2003-Dec-18, 07:30 PM
Fair enough. Without access to the Search tools available to professionals, as a layman I have limited resources and often see only what advocates of CS have found and posted. Two of these,
one from Brigham Young University's Microbiology Dept. and one by Burgdorfer at NIH's Rocky Mountain Labs, come up with similar results, all being in vitro, indicating "reproducible" results:
http://www.csprosystems.com/BYU_Bacteria_Testing.html
http://members.tripod.com/boymarko1/dept__of_health.htm
IF these are indeed accurate representations of REAL testing, why hasn't the medical research community not done in vivo


I would like to point out 1 thing here. I have on many occasion's(to many for my liking) gotten reproducible in vitro results that then do nothing in vivo. I haven't published the work becasue it is useless. All I got from it were a few dead mice. So I go back to the drawing board and come up with a new approach. Reproducible in vitro and reproducible in vivo are way different. Also even if something works great in a mouse or monkee model there is no gaurentee it work in humans. A great example is VaxGen's HIV vaccine that worked well in vitro and in vivo animal models but appears to be bombing in humans.

Edit: okay so Sammy said basically the same thing. Shoul dhave submitted this before I went to lunch. Oops.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-18, 07:55 PM
It's not very useful or original research either.
Perhaps to you, but he did point out that CSP will turn a person's skin blue---exactly the form of CS Rosemary Jacobs ingested as a child.

Why do you think people aren't doing in vivo studies?
Yes, that IS my question for the medical community.

there is no reason to think ingestion of colloidal silver has any benefits
Other than in vitro results? Seems like a mighty first step to me.

there is KNOWN toxicity from such ingestion
of improperly prepared CS, yes, but I have yet to see verification of toxicity from the properly prepared.

Any scientifically valid research would involve witholding known beneficial drugs from ill people and giving them treatment KNOWN to be toxic
I thought that's what volunteers signed waivers for. (Still questioning your "KNOWN to be toxic", as applied to CS ingestion, tho, and eagerly await SCIENTIFIC confirmation, or the location of these poisoned and dead bodies.)

animal research would precede human experimentation
Anecdotally---not scientifically---cats, dogs and horses will drink
from a CS-laced bowl over "regular" water.

A negative finding might even stop credulous folks like you
from buying.
And what would a positive finding do? (I make my own, thank you, as do most users, once they realize how cheap and simple it is.)

...the Reader's Digest as a scientific authority!!
Happy to hear you got a laugh---it wasn't offered as a scientific authority, tho, but was the content itself accurate or not?

SciFi Chick
2003-Dec-18, 07:58 PM
Anecdotally---not scientifically---cats, dogs and horses will drink from a CS-laced bowl over "regular" water.


What does that prove? Cats drink antifreeze too, and it will kill them. That's why there are warnings to keep it away from them. Dogs will eat chocolate if you let them. Also, poisonous.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-18, 08:02 PM
animal research would precede human experimentation
Anecdotally---not scientifically---cats, dogs and horses will drink
from a CS-laced bowl over "regular" water.


This is an abslute MUST. You can not go from in vitro to humans in current medical testing. IF you do not have mouse model or monkee model data you can not even begin human studies. This is very well outlined in all testing procedures in all medical communities. Anyone who doesn't do this is waiting to get in deep poo-poo(can't say the other word).

tuffel999
2003-Dec-18, 08:06 PM
Quote:
there is no reason to think ingestion of colloidal silver has any benefits


Sarong wrote: Other than in vitro results? Seems like a mighty first step to me.

I refer you back to my last post on page 7. These tests may have been done but showed no benefit in vivo so they were not published it may be that the in vitro findings are great but something unexpected in the in vivo model kept it from working. I have pages of failed experiment data that will not see the light of day since it doesn't mean anything.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-18, 08:39 PM
Reproducible in vitro and reproducible in vivo are way different.
Yes, I understand. What is puzzling is that it would seem someone, somewhere must have done scientific animal in vivo studies, given CS's in vitro successes.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-18, 09:31 PM
Reproducible in vitro and reproducible in vivo are way different.
Yes, I understand. What is puzzling is that it would seem someone, somewhere must have done scientific animal in vivo studies, given CS's in vitro successes.

I was making this point by analogy but I will try again. Someone could very well have and got no result, an inconlusive result, a result that didn't prove their hypothesis so it was dropped, or unreproducible results so it ended up in that notebook of failed experiments that every researcher has.

Musashi
2003-Dec-18, 09:46 PM
In other words, the lack of a published result actually speaks more in favor of there being no in vivo successes. Tie that to your assertion that "someone ,somewhere must have done in vivo studies", and you'll see what I mean.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-18, 11:20 PM
I have...gotten reproducible in vitro results that then do nothing in vivo. I haven't published the work because it is useless.
---tuffel999
Okay, so all that work went to naught, as far as publishing. Conceivably, others, unaware of your results, would, on their own, duplicate whatever you did and come up with nothing also, ad
infinitum. Too bad there isn't a clearing house of some sort to prevent futile duplication or maybe spot something to avoid in their approach, but I guess that's the nature of the research beast.

What does that prove? Cats drink antifreeze too... ---SciFiChick
Good point, SFC. When I discovered propylene glycol was a listed ingredient in name-brand frozen chicken-pot pies---to "improve" their consistency, as the manufacturer told me---I started making my own pies. "What does that prove?"---again anecdotal and UNscientific---re CS and pets, can be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CSCats-Dogs/

sarongsong
2003-Dec-18, 11:31 PM
the lack of a published result actually speaks more in favor of there being no in vivo successes.---Musashi

A reputable researcher would insist on publishing results. ---Sammy
Unclear on the concept, here. Only successful results get published, while no success equates to no publication?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-19, 02:15 AM
the lack of a published result actually speaks more in favor of there being no in vivo successes.---Musashi

A reputable researcher would insist on publishing results. ---Sammy
Unclear on the concept, here. Only successful results get published, while no success equates to no publication?


sarongsong: "Okay, so all that work went to naught, as far as publishing. Conceivably, others, unaware of your results, would, on their own, duplicate whatever you did and come up with nothing also, ad
infinitum. Too bad there isn't a clearing house of some sort to prevent futile duplication or maybe spot something to avoid in their approach, but I guess that's the nature of the research beast. "

Yes I am sure many hours, days, weeks, and months have been wasted in lab because of this but like you said it is the nature ofthe thing.

Now sammy and musashi's comments aren't exclusive. Positive reults get published because they advance knowledge in some way. Negative results do not advance knowledge since show you had a incorrect hypothesis(which can be ammended to explain the results you get and retested later) or worse than that you get no results at all!

For instance, I have chemical YFC. I think YFC will be successful antibiotic. So you test it on a petri dish of bacteria and it kills them dead. Next you try it in a mouse but the infection is not stopped. For all of your best effort nothing happens and the work goes nowhere. So the work gets canned except for maybe a small obscure paper on the in vitro effects. Otherwise YFC is of no use so the rest of your data collects dust in the bottom of a drawer.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-19, 03:55 AM
Okay, I think I had it understood pretty well from your previous explanations, tuffel, but wanted to be absolutely sure because Sammy's comment

A negative finding might even stop credulous folks like you from buying.
kind of inferred that a negative finding of CS to perform (in vivo) would somehow become public knowledge.
Thanks to all for your kind patience in explaining this peek into the world of scientific peer-review and publication.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-19, 04:07 AM
Okay, I think I had it understood pretty well from your previous explanations, tuffel, but wanted to be absolutely sure because Sammy's comment

A negative finding might even stop credulous folks like you from buying.
kind of inferred that a negative finding of CS to perform (in vivo) would somehow become public knowledge.


The only times I know when this occurs is when a new finding for a drug comes along that is commonly used. You know like if someone found out that prozac caused cancer......that would show up in the literature. However, these types of papers noirmally show up only after a drug has been commonly prescribed for a long period of time and there have been instances of unusual side effects. One drug currently caught in a situation like this is Oxycontin. It has been found to be a little more addictive than originally thought. Oops. So now it is being reformulated.

So CS may not have negative data (or any data) like this since it is not a commonly prescribed drug and so it wouldn't have been caught after the fact and not before the fact if it ended up in a researchers notebook of failed experiments.

Edit Spelling

captain swoop
2003-Dec-23, 01:58 PM
Australian restrictions on sale of Coloidal Silver

http://www.ncahf.org/digest03/03-47.html

sarongsong
2003-Dec-23, 05:54 PM
Australian restrictions on sale of Coloidal Silver---captain swoop
Seems a fair approach, calling for proof of any therapeutic claims made by sellers, while conceding CS has a legitimate use in water treatment processes:
"...There was broad support for the TGA proposal, with the proviso that the genuine use of colloidal silver for water purification purposes does not become captured under the Act...
he TGA has not approved any colloidal silver medicines and most of the products currently being marketed will become illegal therapeutic goods. The TGA will take action to stop the supply of these illegal therapeutic goods.
Suppliers wishing to market colloidal silver products as therapeutic goods will need to submit an application with the relevant information to the TGA. This could be in the form of an application to have colloidal silver approved as a new Listable substance (on the basis of demonstrated safety and quality) or an application to have products containing colloidal silver included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (on the basis of demonstrated safety, quality and efficacy)..."
http://www.tga.health.gov.au/docs/html/csilver.htm

Sammy
2003-Dec-23, 06:15 PM
Sarongsong wrote


This could be in the form of an application to have colloidal silver approved as a new Listable substance (on the basis of demonstrated safety and quality) or an application to have products containing colloidal silver included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (on the basis of demonstrated safety, quality and efficacy)..."
(emphasis added)

This means no CS will be sold for human ingestion, while retaining the use of silver for bacteriostatic use in water purification (which I have in my home well water system).

Good for the Aussies!

sarongsong
2003-Dec-28, 04:20 AM
...the scientific method means absolutely NOTHING if the work is not peer reviewed and reproducable...---tuffel999
Okay, don't know how I was allowed onto their site, but is this an example that meets the criteria of scientific authority?
"Pulmonary and Systemic Distribution of Inhaled Ultrafine Silver Particles in Rats"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E3B6137E6

Sammy
2003-Dec-28, 05:22 AM
...the scientific method means absolutely NOTHING if the work is not peer reviewed and reproducable...---tuffel999
Okay, don't know how I was allowed onto their site, but is this an example that meets the criteria of scientific authority?
"Pulmonary and Systemic Distribution of Inhaled Ultrafine Silver Particles in Rats"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E3B6137E6

Why would you wonder about being allowed on the site? It's public.

The real question, yet again, is a) do you read the articles you post as support for your positions; and b) do you have ANY concept/understanding of medical/biological science? The cited article, while indeed peer reviewed and accepted by a scientific journal, had NOTHING to do with the issue of the safety/benefits of human ingestion of CS. It is an investigation of the distribution of fine particles in the rat resp. system after exposure, and the ultimate passage of the agent into the blood stream. It is an exercise in inhalation toxicology. They used silver, but could have used many other agents instead. It says NOTHING about the subject under discussion.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-28, 05:43 AM
The cited article, while indeed peer reviewed and accepted by a scientific journal
I take it that's a 'Yes' to my question:

is this an example that meets the criteria of scientific authority?
Thank you.

Sammy
2003-Dec-28, 06:36 PM
The cited article, while indeed peer reviewed and accepted by a scientific journal
I take it that's a 'Yes' to my question:

is this an example that meets the criteria of scientific authority?
Thank you.

I answered your questions; what about answering MY questions?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-28, 10:17 PM
I cannot seem to get into the article it has a username/password on it. I will have to try from my ejournals account when the network is back up in the lab. However, from the abstract it appears you are correct sammy it is just a study on movement of vey fine particles in rat lungs to blood stream.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-30, 08:43 PM
Medical news story of the day.

US Bans Ephedra

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20031230/ap_on_he_me/ephedra_20

SciFi Chick
2003-Dec-30, 08:46 PM
Tuffel - Did you post that under Bad Medicine because Ephedra is bad, or because it's bad that it's being banned?

tuffel999
2003-Dec-30, 08:50 PM
Well it was not my favorite supplement that Ithought should have been regulated for a long time. I have only anecdotal evidence of its negative effects (but the examples i know of were really bad) but I am looking for the survey they talked about right now.

Russell
2003-Dec-30, 10:32 PM
Hello:
I'm coming into this late so please excuse me. As a matter of fact I posted a topic on homeopathic medicines not knowing this thread existed. I have not had time to read everything here, what I'm looking for is any serious study concerning the medicine. My wife really believes in this stuff (shes Italian), and I feel like I'm giving my money to a witch doctor. My wife is starting to give this poo poo to my seven month old daughter. She says that it can't hurt. I recently read an article in Scientific American to the contrary.

Musashi
2003-Dec-30, 10:43 PM
It is my opinion that there aren't any scientific studies done on the effectiveness of homeopathich medicines. This is because the only people who have the monetary incentive to do the studies, the people who make the homeopathic claims, can only lose. The studies would probably show that homeopathy is worhtless.

tuffel999
2003-Dec-30, 11:11 PM
Hello:
I'm coming into this late so please excuse me. As a matter of fact I posted a topic on homeopathic medicines not knowing this thread existed. I have not had time to read everything here, what I'm looking for is any serious study concerning the medicine. My wife really believes in this stuff (shes Italian), and I feel like I'm giving my money to a witch doctor. My wife is starting to give this poo poo to my seven month old daughter. She says that it can't hurt. I recently read an article in Scientific American to the contrary.


Well welcome Russell. I am the instigator of this thread. I have searched through most journals via ejournals from my university and I have found little if anything on homeopathic medicines as a whole. Now I have found several studies on individual treatments that did not work. If you have one in particular I can go through ejournals and pull the pdf and email you the studies. Also, check the beginng of this thread for our original comments if I remember some helpful websites were linked up there. Like I said though feel free to post one you have a question about and i will go through the journals for you since my university gives me free access. And welcome again.

sarongsong
2003-Dec-31, 02:59 AM
Medical news story of the day. US Bans Ephedra...

...effective in 60 days, despite already being implicated in over 100 deaths. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031230/D7VOR9H80.html
Contrast this dawdling approach with last June's FTC immediate "emergency" action---all assets seized, product shipments stopped and employees laid off---over a labeling dispute with a different supplement:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/06/17/export12884.txt
that was quickly resolved:
"...company closed down last month after the Federal Trade Commission sought an emergency court order alleging that the company's nutritional supplement was mislabeled, may be back in business as early as Monday morning..."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K39B21CE6

tuffel999
2003-Dec-31, 03:11 AM
The reason is really simple read the text below:


The federal government seized the offices of a Carlsbad company Monday in connection with a lawsuit brought against the firm by the Federal Trade Commission.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleges that the company makes false and unsubstantiated claims when advertising its product, a dietary supplement advertised on the Internet as a wonder cure for almost any condition

The emphasis is mine but it goes to prove there are only 3 groups in the us government that can shut someone down quick. The IRS, the FTC, and the FBI. The ephedra ban came from the FDA and it was the FIRST dietary supplement ban, so they had to be more careful than the FTC and have boat loads of data to move. Also the FTC busted them for false advertising NOT for health reasons. Although this MAY open a new day in regulation of dietary supplements and alternative medicines that are currently not regulated.

Sammy
2003-Dec-31, 05:56 AM
See Quackwatch.Com, a very reliable source on medical scams. Here is a brief excerpt on homeopathy, but go to the site at http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.htmland read the whole thing:


Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Homeopathic "remedies" enjoy a unique status in the health marketplace: They are the only category of quack products legally marketable as drugs. This situation is the result of two circumstances. First, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was shepherded through Congress by a homeopathic physician who was a senator, recognizes as drugs all substances included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. Second, the FDA has not held homeopathic products to the same standards as other drugs. Today they are marketed in health-food stores, in pharmacies, in practitioner offices, by multilevel distributors [A], through the mail, and on the Internet.

Basic Misbeliefs
Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician, began formulating homeopathy's basic principles in the late 1700s. Hahnemann was justifiably distressed about bloodletting, leeching, purging, and other medical procedures of his day that did far more harm than good. Thinking that these treatments were intended to "balance the body's 'humors' by opposite effects," he developed his "law of similars" -- a notion that symptoms of disease can be cured by extremely small amounts of substances that produce similar symptoms in healthy people when administered in large amounts. The word "homeopathy" is derived from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering or disease).

Hahnemann and his early followers conducted "provings" in which they administered herbs, minerals, and other substances to healthy people, including themselves, and kept detailed records of what they observed. Later these records were compiled into lengthy reference books called materia medica, which are used to match a patient's symptoms with a "corresponding" drug.

Hahnemann declared that diseases represent a disturbance in the body's ability to heal itself and that only a small stimulus is needed to begin the healing process. He also claimed that chronic diseases were manifestations of a suppressed itch (psora), a kind of miasma or evil spirit. At first he used small doses of accepted medications. But later he used enormous dilutions and theorized that the smaller the dose, the more powerful the effect -- a notion commonly referred to as the "law of infinitesimals." That, of course, is just the opposite of the dose-response relationship that pharmacologists have demonstrated.

The basis for inclusion in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia is not modern scientific testing, but homeopathic "provings" conducted during the 1800s and early 1900s. The current (ninth) edition describes how more than a thousand substances are prepared for homeopathic use. It does not identify the symptoms or diseases for which homeopathic products should be used; that is decided by the practitioner (or manufacturer). The fact that substances listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia are legally recognized as "drugs" does not mean that either the law or the FDA recognizes them as effective.

DreadCthulhu
2003-Dec-31, 07:58 AM
It is my opinion that there aren't any scientific studies done on the effectiveness of homeopathich medicines. This is because the only people who have the monetary incentive to do the studies, the people who make the homeopathic claims, can only lose. The studies would probably show that homeopathy is worhtless.

And if you did try to do a study on homeopathic medicine, what would you use for the placebo? :lol: At the dulution levels some of the homeopathic medicine is at, there is NO way to tell them apart from plain, distilled water.

TriangleMan
2003-Dec-31, 11:41 AM
And if you did try to do a study on homeopathic medicine, what would you use for the placebo? :lol: At the dulution levels some of the homeopathic medicine is at, there is NO way to tell them apart from plain, distilled water.
And couldn't homeopaths just claim that the placebo water must have picked up 'vibrations' or 'essences' of something? It's not like there is any way to test the water for 'essence of nothing' :roll:

sarongsong
2003-Dec-31, 09:42 PM
Turning to today's headlines:
"WASHINGTON (AP)-- The Food and Drug Administration made it official again Tuesday: The anthrax vaccine is safe and effective, no matter how the infection is spread.
The ruling comes a week after a federal judge halted the military's anthrax inoculations, saying he thought the vaccine was experimental if used to prevent inhaled anthrax instead of the through-the-skin form.
The Justice Department, citing the FDA order, asked U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to set aside his preliminary ban, except for the six plaintiffs who filed a class action suit against the Defense Department to stop the vaccinations..."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L35D52DE6
Would you take this vaccine for protection against an airborne version of anthrax?
(What the label states:
http://gulfwarvets.com/vacsaf.htm )

Sammy
2003-Dec-31, 11:32 PM
As usual, Sarongsong has provided a reference from and advocacy site. These folks have an agenda, albeit one which may be both valid and well-intentioned, but still, an agenda.

The cited pages implies that the info sheet is NOT available to docs giving the treatment. Thats seems odd, assuming that one is included with the vaccine product.

I'm in no way expert on this product and it's uses, but I note that the data sheet posted on the sited web page is dated 1987. That may be why airborn sources of infection are NOT cited. It seems to me that the route by which the anthrax enters the blood stream (which is where the vaccine-induced antibodies will be doing their work) is not critical (but again I must caveat that I claim no particular expertise here). It does NOT state that the vaccine is CONTRAINDICATED for airborne exposure.

Also, a CURRENT data sheet may well indicate whether or not the vaccine is indicated for airborne exposure. I hope that Mike Alexander or one of the other folks who is expert in these matters will post soon.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-01, 05:24 PM
Would you take this vaccine for protection against an airborne version of anthrax?


Yes. I personally know around 30 people who have had it and none have had any ill effects. Anecdotal yes, but it doesn't really worry me too much seeings how the I know what goes into testing vaccines. You see very few that are ever recalled be cause the amount of work that goes into them. Second, of the vaccines I am personally familiar with NONE are affected by method of exposure. The immune response doesn't work that way. Once you have the antibodies in the blood stream the way they come into contact with the causitive agent doesn't matter. If they meet the anthrax at the alveoli or in a capillary bed at the skin doesn't matter since they are the same antibodies and they still work the same way since the circulatory system is closed(mostly).

More info on anthrax: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/anthrax/public.htm

A few really simplified sheets on how vaccines work: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/fs/gen/howvacswork.htm

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/immunization/system.htm

http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb150/Lect26/Lect26slides.pdf

Russell
2004-Jan-01, 09:55 PM
tuffel999:
Thanks for all the responses. There are a couple of these medicines my wife gravitates around. One is called belladonna, the others I will have to go take a look at what there called. I believe one is called antimonium, the others I will get back to you. Thanks for your help.

Sammy
2004-Jan-02, 04:28 AM
tuffel999:
Thanks for all the responses. There are a couple of these medicines my wife gravitates around. One is called belladonna, the others I will have to go take a look at what there called. I believe one is called antimonium, the others I will get back to you. Thanks for your help.

I'd be very nervous about anyone ingesting these agents. Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade) can cause severe throat constriction and other adverse effects. Antimony has no know theraputic uses; I don't know about possible adverse effects. In either case, a lot depends on the concentration and quantity which she is ingesting.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-02, 05:02 PM
tuffel999:
Thanks for all the responses. There are a couple of these medicines my wife gravitates around. One is called belladonna, the others I will have to go take a look at what there called. I believe one is called antimonium, the others I will get back to you. Thanks for your help.

Some one actually ingests Nightshade willingly :o Actually i know of no good use for nightshade today. In the ancient world it was a commonly used poison. If my history is good Marc Anthony's troops were poisoned with nightshade. It's hallucinogenic properties have been known since the time of the ancient greeks.

The active chemical is called Solanine. Below is an exert from the university of wisconsin about Solanine. This is a general information page on farm animals(human data will be scarce since well apparently it is not ethical to test poisons on people, who would have though) and nightshade(I link it since it has one of the easier explanations to follow. I have requested from my library some articles that were not available online, if these prove more useful I will post the sections but the abstracts made them seem a little tough to read. Sorry I don't have them now the library was closed on the 1st):
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/uw_weeds/extension/articles/toxeblkngh.htm

"All Solanum spp. plants should be considered poisonous, but there is little firm evidence about the toxicity of most species. A variety of alkaloids have been extracted from Solanum species including glycoalkaloids and an alkamine fraction. The toxic principle, a glycoalkaloid called solanine, is found in leaves, shoots and unripe berries. Possible symptoms after animals ingest nightshade include acute hemorrhage, gastroenteritis, weakness, excess salivation, dyspnea, trembling, progressive paralysis, prostration, and death.

Solanine, a highly toxic alkaloid, has been extracted from eastern black nightshade. Similar to the influence of light on the development of solanine in potatoes, factors like soil, climate and season have an enormous effect on the alkaloid content of eastern black nightshade. Hence, in some places, the plant is harmless while it can be toxic in others. Nevertheless, the commonest source of solanine poisoning in farm animals has been with potato tubers, and most cases of solanine poisoning have occurred in European countries.

Solanine is a glycoalkaloid which contains three sugar residues (galactose, glucose and rhamnose) attached to an aglycone moiety called solanidine."

A great book on plants not to eat that I keep is: Turner, Nancy J., and Adam F. Szczawinski, "Common Poisonous Plants and Mushrooms of North America," Timber Press, 1991. It too has a good section about nightshade adn why not too eat it.

I don't really know how anyone passes it off as a remedy since it has been known as a poison for so long. Needless to say I would avoid ingesting this one :o

tuffel999
2004-Jan-02, 05:39 PM
tuffel999:
I believe one is called antimonium, the others I will get back to you. Thanks for your help.

Ok this one is giving me some trouble, granted I spent most of my time looking up Solanine. From the name I would have to ask does this contain Antimony? If it does yikes on one side and not so bad on the other. Antimony is still used on occasion to treat certain parasites, maybe FP can step in here and double check that. However, large amounts of it have been shown ot be very toxic in animal studies and to be a believed carcinogen(I think this data is still a bit fuzzy).

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts23.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/antimony.html

Now if it doesn't contain antimony I will have to go back to the drawing board and figure out what it is(the name antimonium i can't seem to find in any of the chemistry texts I have). FP may be able to give some more insight on this, hopefully he will stop in soon.

Sammy
2004-Jan-02, 06:48 PM
Thanks for digging up that data, Tuffel. I knew Belladonna was bad stuff, but didn't have much on antrimony (assuming that's what Russel was talking about.

I found some some references to antimony as a vermifuge, as you indicated. I suspect that "Mrs. Russe"l may have fallen under the influence of the Hulda Clark school, which holds that disases from acne to cancer are caused by intestinal parasites. They market all sorts of vermifuges and a worthless device called a "Zapper" which eletrocutes the parasites!

The FDA/FTC have been on their case, but they keep popping up.

sarongsong
2004-Jan-02, 09:32 PM
My high school Latin teacher mentioned belladonna was once used by Italian women somehow to enhance their eyes by dilating their pupils. Items Russell mentioned can also be found here:
http://www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/index.htm

Russell
2004-Jan-03, 09:22 PM
Hello:
Some of the names may through you off, remeber they were purchased at Italian pharmacies. All the info on belladonna is interesting, she uses this stuff all the time. Here is another name, Tartaricum. Thanks for the help.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-03, 11:29 PM
Thanks for digging up that data, Tuffel. I knew Belladonna was bad stuff, but didn't have much on antrimony (assuming that's what Russel was talking about.

No problem it is what i do when i am bored.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-04, 12:16 AM
Hello:
Some of the names may through you off, remeber they were purchased at Italian pharmacies. All the info on belladonna is interesting, she uses this stuff all the time. Here is another name, Tartaricum. Thanks for the help.

Ok so this one seems interesting. DO Tartaricum and antimonium show up in the same product? When I search for antimonium I don't find much(basically nothing) but when I search Tartaricum I get a few hits on tartaricum antimonium. The few reports I have found for tartaricum antimonium claim it is a remedy for Varicella Zoster, bronchitis, and acne. A nice wide range of totally unrelated ailments. However, I cannot find any clinicals to back that up. In fact all of the places that claim it to be effective never reference any studies either and are from the web not ejournals. Let me know if this is the product and I will continue looking then. I just don't want to waste hours on the wrong product.

Edit: Fixed spelling and spacing. #-o

Russell
2004-Jan-04, 08:38 AM
Hello
I was going off the top of my head, but upon checking they are the same. Soory about that. Thanks for the help.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-04, 05:35 PM
Ok then back at it for me. I'll see what I can dig up in the library tomorrow morning when I am in there. I will do some checking tonight as well.

Sammy
2004-Jan-05, 05:59 PM
Ok then back at it for me. I'll see what I can dig up in the library tomorrow morning when I am in there. I will do some checking tonight as well.

Less posting and more research is what we need! (Shameless fluff post to try and catch back up with tuffel) :D

Russell
2004-Jan-05, 10:04 PM
Hello:
Here is another, Euphorbium Compositum (nasal spray).

tuffel999
2004-Jan-05, 10:25 PM
I am still working on the last one. Just to let you know it will probably be thursday before I have anything to post on either. I have a research ethics seminar the next two days all day so Iwill be away. Sorry. Can't be avoided. I mean really you try and test a few unauthorized things on people and they totally flip out. Sheesh. :wink:







(FOr those who may worry I didn't just a joke)

Russell
2004-Jan-05, 10:33 PM
Hello:
Thats cool, thanks for your help on this subject. This whole homeopathic thing is a touchy subject between my wife and I. I told her there were some folks on-line doing some research and she started doing back flips, almost banned me from the computer. Thanks again, I'll probably hear from you towards the end of the week.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-06, 12:03 AM
Don't know if we have tossed this link to you yet but it gives some stuff to look at while I am gone, if we haven't already passed it on.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

Sammy
2004-Jan-06, 02:02 AM
Thanks for the opening, teuffel!

I posted that link for him on 12/31.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-06, 02:52 AM
Hmmm...yes apparently I no read so good and i completely missed that you had indeed posted that link. Oops!

sarongsong
2004-Jan-06, 04:39 AM
...The ephedra ban came from the FDA and it was the FIRST dietary supplement ban...---tuffel999
What was L-Tryptophan?

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Jan-06, 06:12 AM
...The ephedra ban came from the FDA and it was the FIRST dietary supplement ban...---tuffel999
What was L-Tryptophan?

It was a Sleeping Pill.

It was well within the Established Rights of the FDA, to Ban it.

Sammy
2004-Jan-06, 06:13 AM
L-Tryptophan is an amino acid. It was sold as a dietary supplement, but is worthless in that context (from Quackwatch):


Tryptophan in a bottle is not a nutritional supplement. In protein, it comes with 21 other amino acids, and you need all of them in order to utilize them and make protein. Pure tryptophan in pills or in a bottle is not natural. . . . The body cannot use it to make its own protein. There is not a single person in America who is tryptophan-deficient. Isolated amino acid deficiencies do not occur. People who have low blood tryptophan levels also have low blood levels of other essential amino acids as well, because these people are protein-deficient. Giving one amino acid to a protein-deficient person can make matters worse. Richard Wurtman, MD, MIT/Harvard Amedical School.

Unfortunately, impurities in L-tryptofan marketed in many areas caused illness and deaths (ferom Quackwatch):


In 1989, an outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) occurred among L-tryptophan users [2]. A hitherto rare disorder, EMS is a debilitating disease characterized by severe muscle and joint pain, weakness, swelling of the arms and legs, fever, skin rash, and an increase of eosinophils (certain white blood cells) in the blood. Over the next year, more than 1,500 cases and twenty-eight deaths were reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [3]. The actual toll probably was more than 5,000 people, many of whom suffered for years and are still disabled. Soke of the victims were children. When the link between EMS and L-tryptophan became apparent, the FDA quickly banned its sale [4,5]. (emphasis added)

The EMS outbreak was traced to the presence of an impurities in the L-tryptophan produced by Showa Denko K.K., a Japanese wholesaler that was the major supplier to American manufacturers [6-8]. Showa Denko realized that it would not only be liable for damages to L-tryptophan victims but would probably be forced to reimburse American manufacturers for the costs of legal actions against them. Rather than working at cross-purposes with the manufacturers, Showa Denko agreed to shoulder all the expenses involved.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-07, 01:55 AM
...The ephedra ban came from the FDA and it was the FIRST dietary supplement ban...---tuffel999
What was L-Tryptophan?

Like sammy said above^^^^^

It was banned because of impurities not the actual substance(although there is some concern about it according to the FDA). Ephedra was banned because of the substance not because of impurities in the manufacture. You can still purchase L-tryptophan legally. Although it won't do you any good (really you might as well take D-tryptophan :wink:) or make you sleepy in normal doses.

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-tryp1.html

Edit: added link

FP
2004-Jan-07, 03:44 PM
[ Antimony is still used on occasion to treat certain parasites, maybe FP can step in here and double check that.

Sorry guys, I was off getting my oldest enrolled at Ole Miss.

The only use for antimony containing compounds I can find is for a parasite called Leishmania, a protoza transmitted by sand flea bites.

For further info, here's a good review:

http://www3.baylor.edu/~Charles_Kemp/leishmaniasis.htm

The problem with treating infections with heavy metals such as antimony and arsenic (formerly used to treat syphyllis) is the toxicity, as we have noted several times here.

rigel
2004-Jan-07, 06:43 PM
What I find so amazing is that people who are so against fluoride in water or toothpaste, or mercury anywhere, will be promoting use of antimony, colloidal silver and a variety of other natural minerals I would not take.

Russell
2004-Jan-08, 07:11 AM
Hello:
I got another one, Calendula.

FP
2004-Jan-08, 03:16 PM
Calendula is apparently the marigold plant, used for treatment of oral ulcers in folk medicine. Some reports indicate that it has been used in combination with other plants for gastric ulcers and other GI complaints. Needless to say, none of these "studies" are double blinded, or even designed so that the results mean anything at all.

http://www.herbmed.org/Herbs/Herb29.htm

sarongsong
2004-Jan-09, 02:37 AM
...The ephedra ban came from the FDA
Will the ban affect OTC drug Sudafed (pseudo-ephedrine)?

sarongsong
2004-Jan-09, 02:51 AM
What I find so amazing is that people who are so against fluoride in water or toothpaste...---rigel
Los Angeles is about to fluoridate its water---would you drink it?
(apologies for the all-caps cut-n-paste:)
"...IF THE EARLY ESTIMATES OF 80% TOOTH IMPROVEMENT IN CHILDRENS’ TEETH BY AGE 13 WERE TRUE, EACH AMERICAN WOULD NOW HAVE LESS THAN ONE CAVITY..."
http://goodteeth.tripod.com/summation.htm

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 02:51 AM
Pfizer was not on their warning list. Here is the homepage for the ban info.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-ephed.html

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 03:03 AM
What I find so amazing is that people who are so against fluoride in water or toothpaste...---rigel
Los Angeles is about to fluoridate its water---would you drink it?
(apologies for the all-caps cut-n-paste:)
"...IF THE EARLY ESTIMATES OF 80% TOOTH IMPROVEMENT IN CHILDRENS’ TEETH BY AGE 13 WERE TRUE, EACH AMERICAN WOULD NOW HAVE LESS THAN ONE CAVITY..."
http://goodteeth.tripod.com/summation.htm

That has got to be the worst website I have ever seen. Never mind the grammar and spelling errors but the factual ones are amazing.

A few here:

" Foods and drinks, other than those containing acids, have no action on tooth enamel. SUGARS HAVE NO ACTION ON THE ENAMEL.


3. Bacteria cannot damage the enamel (calcium hydroxy phosphate). There is no such thing as decay of the enamel since bacteria require carbon and hydrogen to live. Billions of human and animal remains show teeth and bones are resistant to earth-bound organisms."

Part one is right but part one feeds part 2.

"Taking calcium and phosphate in the diet results in reenamelization of the teeth,"

Really I would like to see the mechanism for reenamilization to bad he doesn't have one.

"Gums are disinfected by brushing with any bar soap. Not only bacteria and viruses are destroyed promptly by small amounts of soap in water, but also white flies and aphids. Gardeners: Spray 1 tsp of dishwashing soap in 1 gallon of water to kill white flies and aphids."

This is such bull that I am amazed with it. Every day I do analysis of bacteria that survive Triton-X 100 at astronomically high levels. Small amounts of soap do not kill all bacteria.

"EMOVAL OF FLUORIDE FROM DRINKING WATER, PASTES OR GELS SAVES THE ENZYME ADENOSINE DIPHOSPHATASE so it can deliver phosphate to calcium at the tooth surface, RESULTING IN A BEAUTIFUL, SEMI-FLEXIBLE ENAMEL."

ADP is a intermitten product in energy transfer in a cell. It comes from dephosphorylated ATP the basic energy molecule of the cell. Last time I checked enamel wasn't a living tissue undergoing respiration.

"30% of American youths ages 8-10 have no cavities. 100% of Ugandan youths ages 6-10 have no cavities. What does this tell us?"

That there aren't very good dental statistics in Uganda.

Ok that is all I have time for now. Another bad link, sorry.

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 03:12 AM
Try this instead:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 03:19 AM
What I find so amazing is that people who are so against fluoride in water or toothpaste...---rigel
Los Angeles is about to fluoridate its water---would you drink it?
(apologies for the all-caps cut-n-paste:)
"...IF THE EARLY ESTIMATES OF 80% TOOTH IMPROVEMENT IN CHILDRENS’ TEETH BY AGE 13 WERE TRUE, EACH AMERICAN WOULD NOW HAVE LESS THAN ONE CAVITY..."
http://goodteeth.tripod.com/summation.htm

Another clue this is a bunch of garbage this page right here:

http://goodteeth.tripod.com/problemsolutionsgrid.htm

First he can solve all your problems without seeing you=crap.

Second, the solutions are all buy his books=ripoff.

Sammy
2004-Jan-09, 05:18 AM
Don't know how good/bad Ugandan stats are, but if their teeth are good, it may be due to naturally ocuring flouride in their drinking water and/or low consumption/exposure to sticky sweets.

How could flouride be bad --it's natural =D>

The movement to fluoridate drinking water supplies began when epidemiologists noted considerable differences in the incidence of tooth decay in different areas of the country. They then noted that the areas with low rates of tooth decay had natural fluoride in their drinking water. Follow-up research demonstrated a strong cause/effect relationship.

Only woo woos now question the efficacy of flouridation.

Russell
2004-Jan-09, 07:04 AM
Thanks FP:
That is what she usually uses the stuff for, there are a cuople of more I'll dig up.

captain swoop
2004-Jan-09, 09:01 AM
What I find so amazing is that people who are so against fluoride in water or toothpaste...---rigel
Los Angeles is about to fluoridate its water---would you drink it?
(apologies for the all-caps cut-n-paste:)
"...IF THE EARLY ESTIMATES OF 80% TOOTH IMPROVEMENT IN CHILDRENS’ TEETH BY AGE 13 WERE TRUE, EACH AMERICAN WOULD NOW HAVE LESS THAN ONE CAVITY..."
http://goodteeth.tripod.com/summation.htm

Across the river Tees from where I live is the town of Hartlepool, the water they drink is naturaly flouridated, it's in the groundwater. No one there seems to have any health problems and it's a documented fact that people born and bred in Hartlepool have less tooth decay than the rest of us.

sarongsong
2004-Jan-09, 10:41 AM
How could flouride be bad --it's natural---Sammy
The same way ephedra got to be "bad":
"...that in a whole herb formulation containing ephedra,
there may be up to 50 mg of ephedra, containing only half a
milligram of ephedrine. But the products that isolate ephedrine
may deliver up to 20 mg of ephedrine - a full 40 times as much
as ephedra...far higher doses of the (concentrated) synthetic analog of ephedra herb are still available, and in far higher doses per pill than the herbal form. Ever heard of Sudafed?..."
January 8, 2004 Newsletter
http://www.hsibaltimore.com
"...by simply knocking an oxygen molecule off ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, the active ingredient in over-the-counter cold remedies like Sudafed, you can produce pure d-methamphetamine, a much more powerful drug than the d-l-methamphetamine..."
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/00/12/news-koss.php
Do you really think the "natural" form of fluoride is what is used to fluoridate water, and in the dosage that appears in

...the town of Hartlepool, the water they drink is naturaly flouridated, it's in the groundwater....---captain swoop

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 03:09 PM
Do you really think the "natural" form of fluoride is what is used to fluoridate water, and in the dosage that appears in

...the town of Hartlepool, the water they drink is naturaly flouridated, it's in the groundwater....---captain swoop

Yes, sodium flouride that is found in ground water naturally is the same sodium flouride found in treated water(and it is within an order of magnitude the same concentrations as most of the locally occuring polaces where I live). The flouride is just produced commericially so there are large enough amounts to use for the current water needs. By the way apparently flouride can't be bad. You know how I know one of the wholistic natural homeopathic woo woo sites sells toothpaste containing it.

http://www.mothernature.com/shop/detail.cfm/sku/54001

Edit: FP do you know any dentists we could get some more info, like tooth decay states past and present they seem to be alluding me, from?

FP
2004-Jan-09, 03:44 PM
Actually, I try to avoid dentists like the plague.

However, a quick search found this page on the American Dental Association site:

http://www.ada.org/public/manage/you/working_water.asp

From the site:
According to the April 2000 Journal of Dental Research, the use of fluoride since 1960 has been the primary factor in saving some $40 billion in oral health care costs in the United States. The annual cost of community water fluoridation is approximately $0.50 per person. The lifetime cost to provide fluoridated water to one person is less than the cost of a single dental filling.





In addition to the ADA, nearly 100 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental decay. They include the World Health Organization, the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the International Association for Dental Research, the American Cancer Society and the American Dietetic Association.




I realize that this could be arguement from authority, but hey! authorities get to be authorities because they usually know what they are talking about!

tuffel999
2004-Jan-09, 03:52 PM
Dentists can be a miserable lot at times....

I found some similar numbers but I will look ot see if I can find any better numbers when I get some more time. It has been a reather hectic week.

SeanF
2004-Jan-09, 04:08 PM
Actually, I try to avoid dentists like the plague.

Are you sure you don't mean "like the plaque?"

FP
2004-Jan-09, 04:43 PM
Ouch! I needed lidocaine for that one!