Colloidal Silver

[FolkGuitar]

Well this has been entertaining, I like folkguitars posts I read them just to see how many times he would repeat the same thing but in a slightly different way. Yes, we get it, silver in solution kills germs on contact, as does vineger, soap, salt, alcohol, iodine, peroxide etc.

To my knowlege that was never challenged.

Yep, that's pretty much all I've been saying all along, but with just one small difference... Vinegar kills 'some,' soap kills 'some,' salt, alcohol, iodine, peroxide, etc. all kill 'some.' But so far as science can tell, only silver or chlorine bleach kills virtually ALL pathogens. However, chlorine bleach can do severe damage to human cell structure. It is toxic to humans as well as pathogens. Silver ions is not. Some of these others (such as iodine and peroxide) can also have negative side effects on the body if used daily even in small amounts for prolonged periods. Silver ions do not.

Unless misused, silver ions have no effect what so ever to the human body. (This should NOT be construed to mean that can't effect the life cycle of bacteria, virus, and fungus ON or IN the body...) They only effect the cell structure of pathogens, killing them within minutes of contact.

Cheap, safe, effective, and easily available all over. THAT is basically what I've been repeating, and finally getting arunskda to agree with. I did take some time though.

Edited November 25, 2015 by FolkGuitar

[arunsakda]

• The only thing that has gotten through to me is the obvious fact that some people lack a sufficient scientific literacy to intelligently discuss basic topics in chemistry, medicine, and materials science.

• Still in this day and age there are those who are susceptible to false claims of quacksalvers pushing discredited nostrums and patent medicines. Many do not understand basic concepts of science and are thus easily duped by pseudoscientific nonsense.

• Alternative therapy devotees, like religious fanatics and political ideologues, often hold opinions that are based on beliefs or feelings, not facts. They have an uneasy relationship with truth, as they tend to pick and choose facts selectively in a way to enhance the beliefs the already hold. They believe things that are objectively, provably false. When confronted with evidence of this these “true believers” react defensively by becoming more entrenched in their false beliefs.

[Chicog]

• The only thing that has gotten through to me is the obvious fact that some people lack a sufficient scientific literacy to intelligently discuss basic topics in chemistry, medicine, and materials science.

• Still in this day and age there are those who are susceptible to false claims of quacksalvers pushing discredited nostrums and patent medicines. Many do not understand basic concepts of science and are thus easily duped by pseudoscientific nonsense.

• Alternative therapy devotees, like religious fanatics and political ideologues, often hold opinions that are based on beliefs or feelings, not facts. They have an uneasy relationship with truth, as they tend to pick and choose facts selectively in a way to enhance the beliefs the already hold. They believe things that are objectively, provably false. When confronted with evidence of this these “true believers” react defensively by becoming more entrenched in their false beliefs.

Or to put it another way, some people believe what they read (or listen to on the Alex Jones show and other tomfoolery).

[FolkGuitar]

Alternative therapy devotees, like religious fanatics and political ideologues, often hold opinions that are based on beliefs or feelings, not facts.

Or... they believe what actually works for them.

It's very hard to argue something read vs something experienced. Especially if that experience is repeatable when needed.

You can show someone all the writing in the world that says something doesn't work, but if they've experienced that it DOES work you'll never convince them otherwise, no matter how learned the writings. And in this case, millions of people (not just a few, but millions) have found that it does work for them.

I might suggest that if you don't think it's effective, that you don't use it.

But isn't it foolish to try to tell people who are satisfied, who like the benefits they get, to stop using it? Isn't that up to them? You might think they are foolish, think they are being swindled, think they are wasting their money.... or even that it's some sort of Masonic or Mormon conspiracy as you've already suggested. But if THEY are satisfied, what is your reason for preventing it? Are you some sort of Behavior Policeman?

[luk AJ]

Alternative therapy devotees, like religious fanatics and political ideologues, often hold opinions that are based on beliefs or feelings, not facts.

Or... they believe what actually works for them.

It's very hard to argue something read vs something experienced. Especially if that experience is repeatable when needed.

You can show someone all the writing in the world that says something doesn't work, but if they've experienced that it DOES work you'll never convince them otherwise, no matter how learned the writings. And in this case, millions of people (not just a few, but millions) have found that it does work for them.

I might suggest that if you don't think it's effective, that you don't use it.

But isn't it foolish to try to tell people who are satisfied, who like the benefits they get, to stop using it? Isn't that up to them? You might think they are foolish, think they are being swindled, think they are wasting their money.... or even that it's some sort of Masonic or Mormon conspiracy as you've already suggested. But if THEY are satisfied, what is your reason for preventing it? Are you some sort of Behavior Policeman?

Work as what? Disinfectant? For sure this works but do you know for sure it is completely safe when ingested?

Wuote: "But if THEY are satisfied, what is your reason for preventing it? Are you some sort of Behavior Policeman? "

If I can prevent that a father gives CS to his 4y old child I would be very happy to prevent it. Did you read sll the replies on this topic? Do you know the toxicity on aquatic animals? This is proven! So for sure besides anti bacterial properties of CS there are toxic effects not well understood. Of course if people belueve it is healthy they are free to use but force it on a child? You agree and support this?

( yes I know your reply was not meant for me)

[Chicog]

For Sale. One Bridge. Two careful owners. Buyer collects. Payment via Western Union.

[partington]

Alternative therapy devotees, like religious fanatics and political ideologues, often hold opinions that are based on beliefs or feelings, not facts.

Or... they believe what actually works for them.

It's very hard to argue something read vs something experienced. Especially if that experience is repeatable when needed.

You can show someone all the writing in the world that says something doesn't work, but if they've experienced that it DOES work you'll never convince them otherwise, no matter how learned the writings. And in this case, millions of people (not just a few, but millions) have found that it does work for them.

I might suggest that if you don't think it's effective, that you don't use it.

But isn't it foolish to try to tell people who are satisfied, who like the benefits they get, to stop using it? Isn't that up to them? You might think they are foolish, think they are being swindled, think they are wasting their money.... or even that it's some sort of Masonic or Mormon conspiracy as you've already suggested. But if THEY are satisfied, what is your reason for preventing it? Are you some sort of Behavior Policeman?

Also the whole basis of science and scientific investigation is that people's beliefs and interpretations, are by definition, NOT trustworthy. That is the whole reason scientific method was developed, because people have such a propensity to believe what they emotionally want to believe that their experience is not evidence. (If the strength of a person's conviction that something is true was a good indication of how likely it is to ACTUALLY be true, then a lot of fundamentalists would be on the right track, instead of just being nuts.)

This is why when trying to prove something is true, a scientist does NOT say "It works for me, so how can you argue with that?". A scientist says "I took 200 people, and at random treated 100 of them with what I am testing, and 100 of them with an irrelevant substance. Neither I nor the subjects knew who was getting what until after the experiment when the code was broken. We then analysed the results statistically, and worked out the probability that the result we got could have happened by chance. If the results after analysis turned out to have less than 5% probability of being due to chance (that is, if we did the experiment 100 times, fewer than 5 of the experiments would have given the result we got by chance alone, and not because the treatment worked), then we report these results as 'likely to be true'."

This is the only method that is reliable, because the beliefs of the subjects and experimenter are removed from the equation, and the results are only considered valid if they pass a statistical test.

People don't do science like this for fun, but because they know from centuries of experience that humans cannot be trusted to be objective. This is how our brains are wired, and precautions must be taken to avoid misleading ourselves. Just think of that experiment where a phrase is repeated sequentially from one person to another, and after 25 people the phrase emerges completely differently from the original one.

Or that experiment where pigeons are taught to recognise a signal to get food, for example if they peck at a green square when it's lit they get a pellet, but not if they peck a red one. Pigeons learn this quickly and only peck at green lights. But when the experimenters then give the food at random, without a signal, the pigeons associate random movements they were making with getting food, so they twist their necks repeatedly, or stamp one foot, simply because when pellets are given at random they happened to be doing these movements, and become convinced that the movements are causing the food to appear. It "works for them", because they have seen what they think is a pattern causing food to come. It ISN'T a pattern because the food delivery is random, but they think it is. This is how brains work, and knowing this means you never trust your experience over evidence.

Once you accept this, you never go back. But it usually takes a lot of training to accept it.

Edited November 25, 2015 by partington

[expatbrit]

Alternative therapy devotees, like religious fanatics and political ideologues, often hold opinions that are based on beliefs or feelings, not facts.

Or... they believe what actually works for them.

It's very hard to argue something read vs something experienced. Especially if that experience is repeatable when needed.

You can show someone all the writing in the world that says something doesn't work, but if they've experienced that it DOES work you'll never convince them otherwise, no matter how learned the writings. And in this case, millions of people (not just a few, but millions) have found that it does work for them.

I might suggest that if you don't think it's effective, that you don't use it.

But isn't it foolish to try to tell people who are satisfied, who like the benefits they get, to stop using it? Isn't that up to them? You might think they are foolish, think they are being swindled, think they are wasting their money.... or even that it's some sort of Masonic or Mormon conspiracy as you've already suggested. But if THEY are satisfied, what is your reason for preventing it? Are you some sort of Behavior Policeman?

Also the whole basis of science and scientific investigation is that people's beliefs and interpretations, are by definition, NOT trustworthy. That is the whole reason scientific method was developed, because people have such a propensity to believe what they emotionally want to believe that their experience is not evidence. (If the strength of a person's conviction that something is true was a good indication of how likely it is to ACTUALLY be true, then a lot of fundamentalists would be on the right track, instead of just being nuts.)

This is why when trying to prove something is true, a scientist does NOT say "It works for me, so how can you argue with that?". A scientist says "I took 200 people, and at random treated 100 of them with what I am testing, and 100 of them with an irrelevant substance. Neither I nor the subjects knew who was getting what until after the experiment when the code was broken. We then analysed the results statistically, and worked out the probability that the result we got could have happened by chance. If the results after analysis turned out to have less than 5% probability of being due to chance (that is, if we did the experiment 100 times, fewer than 5 of the experiments would have given the result we got by chance alone, and not because the treatment worked), then we report these results as 'likely to be true'."

This is the only method that is reliable, because the beliefs of the subjects and experimenter are removed from the equation, and the results are only considered valid if they pass a statistical test.

People don't do science like this for fun, but because they know from centuries of experience that humans cannot be trusted to be objective. This is how our brains are wired, and precautions must be taken to avoid misleading ourselves. Just think of that experiment where a phrase is repeated sequentially from one person to another, and after 25 people the phrase emerges completely differently from the original one.

Or that experiment where pigeons are taught to recognise a signal to get food, for example if they peck at a green square when it's lit they get a pellet, but not if they peck a red one. Pigeons learn this quickly and only peck at green lights. But when the experimenters then give the food at random, without a signal, the pigeons associate random movements they were making with getting food, so they twist their necks repeatedly, or stamp one foot, simply because when pellets are given at random they happened to be doing these movements, and become convinced that the movements are causing the food to appear. It "works for them", because they have seen what they think is a pattern causing food to come. It ISN'T a pattern because the food delivery is random, but they think it is. This is how brains work, and knowing this means you never trust your experience over evidence.

Once you accept this, you never go back. But it usually takes a lot of training to accept it.

The whole concept of "scientific investigation" ," Double blinding " and statistical analysis is something those blinded and deafened by the attraction and noise of quackery will never understand.

[luk AJ]

Billions of people believe in reincarnation although it is never proven.

[expatbrit]

Billions of people believe in reincarnation although it is never proven.

Which is evidence for the truth of Partington's opening statement !

"Also the whole basis of science and scientific investigation is that people's beliefs and interpretations, are by definition, NOT trustworthy"

[FolkGuitar]

Alternative therapy devotees, like religious fanatics and political ideologues, often hold opinions that are based on beliefs or feelings, not facts.

Or... they believe what actually works for them.

It's very hard to argue something read vs something experienced. Especially if that experience is repeatable when needed.

You can show someone all the writing in the world that says something doesn't work, but if they've experienced that it DOES work you'll never convince them otherwise, no matter how learned the writings. And in this case, millions of people (not just a few, but millions) have found that it does work for them.

I might suggest that if you don't think it's effective, that you don't use it.

But isn't it foolish to try to tell people who are satisfied, who like the benefits they get, to stop using it? Isn't that up to them? You might think they are foolish, think they are being swindled, think they are wasting their money.... or even that it's some sort of Masonic or Mormon conspiracy as you've already suggested. But if THEY are satisfied, what is your reason for preventing it? Are you some sort of Behavior Policeman?

Work as what? Disinfectant? For sure this works but do you know for sure it is completely safe when ingested?

Well... It's obvious that you didn't bother to read what I wrote, or only paid attention to what you could argue about.

I stated quite clearly, SEVERAL TIMES, that I was NOT sure it was safe when ingested. I repeated over and over that I did NOT KNOW if it was, or if it was not safe to ingest.

You didn't bother to read what I wrote because you were just interested in arguing. Sorry, I don't have one-sided arguments.

[FolkGuitar]

You have the right to believe or not believe. Personally, I think you should extend that right to others.

CS has NOT been proven dangerous to humans unless it is, as is the case with so many things, misused.

If it had been found to be dangerous in all the scientific testing, it would be outlawed completely. Instead, it has limitations on how its label must read, rather than banned for sale.

So apparently the scientific community doesn't think it's dangerous. It only thinks it's ineffective. A lot of people think it's ineffective.

But a lot of people think it IS effective.

So... if it's not dangerous (according to the medical and scientific community and all their testing,) and many people want to use it, WHY is it so important to you not to allow them to? Perhaps you need to do a little introspective searching here... Just why do you want to stop people from doing what they want to do?

For the sake of argument, let's say that CS doesn't work for anything. Let's say that it's a complete waste of time and money. Why is it so important to you to stop people from using it?

You can't say because it's dangerous. The scientific community and the medical community say it's safe as long as it's not misused. It's not your money being wasted. It's not your time being wasted.

So what is your motivation for keeping people from doing what they want to do?

[FolkGuitar]

Also the whole basis of science and scientific investigation is that people's beliefs and interpretations, are by definition, NOT trustworthy.

That's very true.

But the point is, no one is asking you to trust what other people believe. (That's the generic 'you,' by the way...)

What I'm saying is 'if they believe it, and it's not dangerous if not misused, why not let them do what they like?'

Edited November 25, 2015 by FolkGuitar

[arunsakda]

Anyone who thinks what is sold as “colloidial silver” is a pure colloid of AG+ ions in water is “ba ba bo bo”.

There is a minute amount of silver in the body. All bound up in compounds. If for example one was able to consume a silver ion it would almost instantaneously

bind to other molecules in the mouth, throat, stomach, gut etc, and would no longer be bioactive.

By the way, I am supposed to eat Yoghurt right? How is this “miracle antibiotic and antiseptic” that "kills everything" supposed to differentiate between dangerous pathogens, normal healthy cells, and beneficial flora in the gut? What Rubbish!

The “silver coin in a petri dish” is specious pseudoscientific trickery. If one outs “colloidal silver” on a would surely it will have some limited anti-septic effect. But while the water is dripping away, so do the particles that do not lodge in your skin (possibly staining it permanently) along whatever AG+ ions drifting about. It is just not effective. If it was effective Doctors would use it. They do not. It is a placebo at best. Some of what has been sold as "colloidal silver" has been found to be contaminated with pathogens! I'd rather use a little Betadine.

Possession of “colloidal silver" cannot be banned, to do so would require jewelers metal, water and other common objects to be banned as well. Anyone who has to defy big government and the evil Doctors and the conspiracy with big Pharma can make their own "colloidal silver". One can also put aluminum foil on the head to protect oneself from whatever.

What should be criminal is sales of bunk patent medicines by dubious hacks who push nostrums with false claims of safety and effectiveness.

Edited December 1, 2015 by arunsakda