Oh, Doc.
I'm not a doc. I do have a master's in wildlife ecology, which
certainly doesn't make me a medical expert (which I would never claim to
be). I would defer to Shauna, currently in nursing school, on medical
matters. But I do know a bit about biology, and something about the
scientific method and how to read and not read journal articles. The
scientific literature is, as any human activity, flawed and
ever-evolving. It is meant to be read by people in the field, and taken
as a body with other related literature. It is never fair game to
cherry-pick one study and think it "proves" something. That's simply
not how it works. And it is definitely not helpful to cite an article
you haven't read as some sort of evidence. As far as I can tell, the
paper you cited from the Lancet is not available online, as it was
published in 1914 (not a typo!). The UMass library carries the Lancet,
so one could read the paper there....or you could if the library wasn't
closed thanks to the coronavirus. So all we know is that Simpson and
Hwelett (both MDs in London) did experiments on the germicidal action of
colloidal silver. Unclear whether they were testing its use as an
external antibacterial in vitro (my guess) or experimentally giving it
internally to humans, and unclear what the outcome was. I stand by my
earlier post about the inadequacy of in vitro studies in assessing the
efficacy and safety of potential drugs for internal use. We know, for
example, that Purell kills the coronavirus on contact quite effectively,
but I hope nobody would suggest drinking the stuff!
If you did somehow manage to find a copy if this 106-year-old paper, I'd
be interested to see a copy and read it with an open mind.
All done.
Brad
On 4/20/2020 6:49 PM, Lawrence Pruyne wrote:
Jonathan cites four scientific studies conducted by:
Dr. Willy Burgdorfer, Ph.D.
Margret Bayer, Ph.D.
Dr. M. Paul Farber
The Department of Health and Human Services, Rocky Mountain Laboratories
Shauna's "almost" a nurse. Brad works on computers at UMass Amherst. They know more than all those doctors and their research cohorts combined.
That's all I need to know about their opinions.
Brad, you give EXACTLY the reason why mainstream medicine views colloidal silver as unproven and dangerous: they can't make money off it. People make it at home, cheap. That's probably what a lot of our grandmothers did.
How long has the medical profession known about the positive effects of colloidal silver in fighting human diseases?
*
*
Over one hundred years.
How do I know that? I checked out what the most prestigious journal in medicine, The Lancet, had to say about it...and the title says it all.
The Lancet,
Volume 184, ISSUE 4763 <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol184no4763/PIIS0140-6736(00)X8295-5>, P1359, December 12, 1914
EXPERIMENTS ON THE GERMICIDAL ACTION OF COLLOIDAL SILVER.
*
W.J. Simpson, C.M.G., M.D. ABERD., F.R.C.P. LOND.
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)96700-X/fulltext#>
*
R.Tanner Hewlett, M.D. LOND., F.R.C.P. LOND.
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)96700-X/fulltext#>
Yes, I believe The Lancet, and the two doctors that wrote the article.
That's six (6) doctors who have carried out experiments, and established the FACT that colloidal silver is useful in treating certain human health conditions.
Yes, I believe /The Lancet,/ and six doctors, and Jonathan.
Thank you, Jonathan. If I ever get lyme disease, the first thing I'm trying is colloidal silver. If it's good enough for my grandmother, it's good enough for me.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:57 PM Shauna Lynn Mallet <shaunalynnccht@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:shaunalynnccht@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Brad,
I’m not a fan of Big Pharma either, and I’m even less of a fan of
Big Insurance, even more so though, I’m not a fan of the spreading
of misinformation, which is what this blog by all accounts appears
to be.
Of course, I also believe in freedom of speech, so while I don’t
know that these posts should be banned from the L, and I haven’t
banned them from the L-ternative group on Facebook, I WILL
continue to counter every ridiculous claim made.
Shauna Mallet
603.762.7513
“Life is never completely without its challenges” Stan Lee
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Bradley W. Compton
<bcompton@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bcompton@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Shauna, as always, for your informed and clear-headed
comments.
>
> As many of us have read in recent weeks, in vitro success of a
drug in no way tells you that it will act as a successful
treatment. It's only the first step in many, which include seeing
whether it kills the pathogen in actual human beings, and oh, what
the hell, maybe some safety tests too (remember: organ damage,
acute kidney failure, seizures). I'm no fan of Big Pharma, but
one of the reasons drugs are so expensive is that it is fabulously
expensive to develop them, in part because so many potential drugs
that seem promising in vitro lead nowhere in the end.
>
> Brad C.
To unsubscribe write to warwicklist-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:warwicklist-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with Unsubcribe as the
subject.
To manage your subscription go to
www.freelists.org/webpage/warwicklist
<//www.freelists.org/webpage/warwicklist>
To visit the list archives go to
https://www.freelists.org/archive/warwicklist/
If all else fails write to warwicklist-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:warwicklist-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
