WARNING: Industry Is Blogging these NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health

wrote in message
u.edu...
"What do pharmabloggers, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus all have in
common?


They do not exist."

Now now, as per the sterling sandbagging logic setup in the original
post for you to say this automagically exposes yourself as a
"pharmablogger".

Over the top.

You also don't seem to know what Mark is. (Clue) not a Pharmblogger, at
least by pay.
Just a participant.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:Qfzfh.4158$it5.3259@trndny06...
wrote:
We know we know, please provide the one example of "pharmablogger"
activity in these newsgroups, the suspence is killing me despite all
the
vitamins I take.

"Read past posts by schultsy. If you don't know haw, that's your
problem. You don't even know how to use the Usenet."

We know we know, some progress at last, after asking now several times we
have it narrowed down to one possible poster. Now, as requested those
many times, pick a post you think illustrates the activity of industry of
sending people to speak critically of the "alternative" industry posters.
At long last we should soon see a real live example of a post by those
evil "pharmabloggers". But why dismiss all the other posters who are
critical for the lack of science in support of the "alternative" industry
posters?


What do pharmabloggers, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus all have in
common?


They do not exist.


Cute. Of course one must define all terms.

BTW, there is one pharm sales person here. I found out who he is and he's
having fun. Yes, he is trying to keep the apple cart upset.

"BrentB" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
We know we know, please provide the one example of "pharmablogger"
activity in these newsgroups, the suspence is killing me despite all
the
vitamins I take.

"Read past posts by schultsy. If you don't know haw, that's your
problem. You don't even know how to use the Usenet."

We know we know, some progress at last, after asking now several times
we have it narrowed down to one possible poster. Now, as requested
those many times, pick a post you think illustrates the activity of
industry of sending people to speak critically of the "alternative"
industry posters. At long last we should soon see a real live example
of a post by those evil "pharmabloggers". But why dismiss all the other
posters who are critical for the lack of science in support of the
"alternative" industry posters?

If your that interested just ask each poster whether they believe
silver nanoparticles are an "antibiotic" as per the patent office or a
"pesticide" as per the EPA. I'd be curious as to the replies.


Yes

Malaria can be a pest. :)

Richard Schultz wrote:
In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:

: If your that interested just ask each poster whether they believe
: silver nanoparticles are an "antibiotic" as per the patent office or a
: "pesticide" as per the EPA. I'd be curious as to the replies.
:
: The result would be a predictable barage of pharmboys whose only
: purpose is to leverage such duplicity into the message that "good
: medicine" is beyond your comprehension, that you should stick with your
: AMA-knighted practicioner and remain addicted to standard antibiotics.

No, you will get several people who will ask you (a) what evidence do
you have that "silver nanoparticles" are effective against bacteria
in vivo; (b) what evidence do you have that "silver nanoparticles" are
*safe* when used at doses high enough to be effective against bacteria
in vivo; (c) what relationship (if any) there is between the mean size
of the nanoparticles, the size distribution, the dose, and the response;
(d) how injection of a heavy metal into the body can possibly be good for
the body, given that we did not evolve any means of metabolizing silver;
(e) how injection of silver nanoparticles as a treatment against bacteria
differs in principle from the injection of cisplatin as a treatment
against cancer.

The dearth of clinical data on use of colloidal silver, combined with
what appears to be inferior technology in its production, suggests
that, while generally safe, its prophylactic abilities are unknown.
Your second and third points are non sequiturs because there is no
data, to my knowledge, that would directly support its use. Your
fourth point, however, introduces a false premise. Silver is a trace
element in nature, found in soil, water, and a variety of plant foods,
including mushrooms. Humans have therefore evolved to (probably)
beneficially (or at least benignly) metabolize it. On your last point,
the primary difference is the fact that one substance is chemically
identical to what occurs in nature, the other is not. The drug
Cisplatin is wholly foreign to human tissue, and is known to pose
serious health risks (including kidney and nerve damage) to patients.
None of this means that colloidal silver is an effective prophylactic,
and those preferring a natural antibiotic should rely on garlic and oil
of oregano, as well as selenium and zinc for support of host immunity.

PeterB

vernon wrote:
wrote in message
u.edu...
We know we know, please provide the one example of "pharmablogger"
activity in these newsgroups, the suspence is killing me despite all
the
vitamins I take.

"Read past posts by schultsy. If you don't know haw, that's your
problem. You don't even know how to use the Usenet."

We know we know, some progress at last, after asking now several times
we have it narrowed down to one possible poster. Now, as requested
those many times, pick a post you think illustrates the activity of
industry of sending people to speak critically of the "alternative"
industry posters. At long last we should soon see a real live example
of a post by those evil "pharmabloggers". But why dismiss all the other
posters who are critical for the lack of science in support of the
"alternative" industry posters?


For your limited intellectual interest, no mention was made by me or the
original poster of the thread that many so-called alties were not off the
wall.

About 1/5 of the people are Pharm toads.
About 1/5 are Doctors (several specialties) protecting their religion
About 2/5 are people pushing some agenda in the "alternate" world. About
1/2 of those are conspiracy kooks. Several are pushers of some magic
vitamin or mineral.
The other 1/5 is trying to attain some interactive information.

Applause. I think you nailed it.

YOU by nature belong in all of the first three groups.
You don't read.
You can't read.
You purposely miss-read.
YOU provide no information, no analysis, no first hand experience, no cuts
from journals for either side on ANY of the N.G.s to which you are now
posting.

BTW
My PRIMARY direct association outside this N.G. is with doctors' groups and
Pharmaceutical studies.

Now, within the mentioned N.G.s, tell us your input on the comparative
pluses and minuses of these products that have similar usages. (They all
have pluses and minuses.) (Some can be taken together) ( Uneducated Doctors
kill with the inappropriate use of some)

Plavix
Cumodin
Nattokinase
Omega-3
Padma Basic
Aspirin

OR
Give us some other similar comparison of other products which have similar
actions as each other.

I hope you brought gum and a good book (and a flashlight.)

PeterB

BrentB wrote:
PeterB wrote:
BrentB wrote:
wrote:
We know we know, please provide the one example of "pharmablogger"
activity in these newsgroups, the suspence is killing me despite all
the
vitamins I take.

"Read past posts by schultsy. If you don't know haw, that's your
problem. You don't even know how to use the Usenet."

We know we know, some progress at last, after asking now several times
we have it narrowed down to one possible poster. Now, as requested
those many times, pick a post you think illustrates the activity of
industry of sending people to speak critically of the "alternative"
industry posters. At long last we should soon see a real live example
of a post by those evil "pharmabloggers". But why dismiss all the other
posters who are critical for the lack of science in support of the
"alternative" industry posters?

If your that interested just ask each poster whether they believe
silver nanoparticles are an "antibiotic" as per the patent office or a
"pesticide" as per the EPA. I'd be curious as to the replies.

The result would be a predictable barage of pharmboys whose only
purpose is to leverage such duplicity into the message that "good
medicine" is beyond your comprehension, that you should stick with your
AMA-knighted practicioner and remain addicted to standard antibiotics.
As for your example, they aren't so interested in the silver coating
technology because it doesn't represent the breadth of application
attributed to prescription drugs, however you'll notice they have more
to say about consumer use of colloidals. You'll see them ridiculing
all direct-to-consumer products that compete directly with FDA
regulated nostrums because that is where they are losing money.

PeterB

I believe the patent is for ASAP colloidal silver.
Peter (or anyone), would you know the intricacies involved in this? The
position of the EPA/FDA/FTC are, or will be, obvious...still a patent
exist for a silver non-toxic disinfectant (better schultzie?). Does the
patent trump the shenanigans from the above agencies?

Sorry Brent, not my area.

"BrentB" wrote in message
ups.com...

PeterB wrote:
BrentB wrote:
wrote:
We know we know, please provide the one example of "pharmablogger"
activity in these newsgroups, the suspence is killing me despite
all
the
vitamins I take.

"Read past posts by schultsy. If you don't know haw, that's your
problem. You don't even know how to use the Usenet."

We know we know, some progress at last, after asking now several
times
we have it narrowed down to one possible poster. Now, as requested
those many times, pick a post you think illustrates the activity of
industry of sending people to speak critically of the "alternative"
industry posters. At long last we should soon see a real live
example
of a post by those evil "pharmabloggers". But why dismiss all the
other
posters who are critical for the lack of science in support of the
"alternative" industry posters?

If your that interested just ask each poster whether they believe
silver nanoparticles are an "antibiotic" as per the patent office or a
"pesticide" as per the EPA. I'd be curious as to the replies.

The result would be a predictable barage of pharmboys whose only
purpose is to leverage such duplicity into the message that "good
medicine" is beyond your comprehension, that you should stick with your
AMA-knighted practicioner and remain addicted to standard antibiotics.
As for your example, they aren't so interested in the silver coating
technology because it doesn't represent the breadth of application
attributed to prescription drugs, however you'll notice they have more
to say about consumer use of colloidals. You'll see them ridiculing
all direct-to-consumer products that compete directly with FDA
regulated nostrums because that is where they are losing money.

PeterB

I believe the patent is for ASAP colloidal silver.
Peter (or anyone), would you know the intricacies involved in this? The
position of the EPA/FDA/FTC are, or will be, obvious...still a patent
exist for a silver non-toxic disinfectant (better schultzie?). Does the
patent trump the shenanigans from the above agencies?


1. The statements in the patent request must be justified or eliminated.
They stand.

ALSO

SILVER KILLS VIRUSES, STUDY FINDS

The New Silver Solution® consists of very tiny (about 10 nanometers long)
particles of pure elemental silver suspended in a solution of very pure
water, sold in bottles with concentrations of 14 parts of silver for every
million parts of water (14 ppm). Even when it was tested at 200 times the
normal adult dosage, the NEW Silver Solution® was found to be completely
non-toxic - unlike many antibiotics and other silver products.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
In a groundbreaking study, the Journal of Nanotechnology has published a
study that found silver nanoparticles kills HIV-1 and is likely to kill
virtually any other virus. The study, which was conducted by the University
of Texas and Mexico University, is the first medical study to ever explore
the benefits of silver nanoparticles, according to Physorg.

After incubating the HIV-1 virus at 37 C, the silver particles killed 100%
of the virus within 3 hours for all three methods.

While further research is needed, researchers are optimistic that
nanological silver may be the silver bullet to kill viruses.

vernon wrote:
"BrentB" wrote in message
ups.com...

PeterB wrote:
BrentB wrote:
wrote:
We know we know, please provide the one example of "pharmablogger"
activity in these newsgroups, the suspence is killing me despite
all
the
vitamins I take.

"Read past posts by schultsy. If you don't know haw, that's your
problem. You don't even know how to use the Usenet."

We know we know, some progress at last, after asking now several
times
we have it narrowed down to one possible poster. Now, as requested
those many times, pick a post you think illustrates the activity of
industry of sending people to speak critically of the "alternative"
industry posters. At long last we should soon see a real live
example
of a post by those evil "pharmabloggers". But why dismiss all the
other
posters who are critical for the lack of science in support of the
"alternative" industry posters?

If your that interested just ask each poster whether they believe
silver nanoparticles are an "antibiotic" as per the patent office or a
"pesticide" as per the EPA. I'd be curious as to the replies.

The result would be a predictable barage of pharmboys whose only
purpose is to leverage such duplicity into the message that "good
medicine" is beyond your comprehension, that you should stick with your
AMA-knighted practicioner and remain addicted to standard antibiotics.
As for your example, they aren't so interested in the silver coating
technology because it doesn't represent the breadth of application
attributed to prescription drugs, however you'll notice they have more
to say about consumer use of colloidals. You'll see them ridiculing
all direct-to-consumer products that compete directly with FDA
regulated nostrums because that is where they are losing money.

PeterB

I believe the patent is for ASAP colloidal silver.
Peter (or anyone), would you know the intricacies involved in this? The
position of the EPA/FDA/FTC are, or will be, obvious...still a patent
exist for a silver non-toxic disinfectant (better schultzie?). Does the
patent trump the shenanigans from the above agencies?


1. The statements in the patent request must be justified or eliminated.
They stand.

ALSO

SILVER KILLS VIRUSES, STUDY FINDS

The New Silver Solution® consists of very tiny (about 10 nanometers long)
particles of pure elemental silver suspended in a solution of very pure
water, sold in bottles with concentrations of 14 parts of silver for every
million parts of water (14 ppm). Even when it was tested at 200 times the
normal adult dosage, the NEW Silver Solution® was found to be completely
non-toxic - unlike many antibiotics and other silver products.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
In a groundbreaking study, the Journal of Nanotechnology has published a
study that found silver nanoparticles kills HIV-1 and is likely to kill
virtually any other virus. The study, which was conducted by the University
of Texas and Mexico University, is the first medical study to ever explore
the benefits of silver nanoparticles, according to Physorg.

After incubating the HIV-1 virus at 37 C, the silver particles killed 100%
of the virus within 3 hours for all three methods.

While further research is needed, researchers are optimistic that
nanological silver may be the silver bullet to kill viruses.

Thanks, I somehow missed it. I may have to reconsider my position on
silver in solution, however I suspect this could be a reference to what
is more accurately known as a hydrosol. I remember there was a press
statement from one company saying it wanted to encapsulate nanosilver
in order to ensure that it makes it into the intestinal tract, at least
for certain types of infection. Logically, if you can get the stuff
into your cells, it has the chance to kill whatever host defenses miss.


Peter

"still a patent exist for a silver non-toxic disinfectant"

A patent is not support for the health claims suggested, the patent
office does no testing and requires no data in support of health claims.
it doesn't even support that it works as the application claims. It
doesn't confirm it is a disenfectent anymore then it is a hair remover
or car polish.

Have you seen those lists of silly patents that have been given?
Recently one was granted for making pie charts on a computer screen,
which has been a standard function for 25 years of course. A patent
only confirms the claim that this is a unique item and there is no
previous patent for the same idea and protection given for any product
based on it.

You could claim a pie chart has all kinds of psychological benefits for
people who look at them and relieves headaches and bad breath, the
epatent office doesn't care or confirm.

"From the approved patent.

Treatment of humans with colloidal silver composition

Various modifications, however, will remain readily apparent to those
skilled in the art, since the general principles of the present
invention have been defined herein specifically to provide an improved
colloidal silver product with significant abilities to kill human
pathogens both in vivo and in vitro.

Now the EPA has come out and stated silver is a pesticide. Simple as
this...either your an idiot and consider silver (found naturally
everywhere) a pesticide or you're a pharmablogger who states the same."

Irrelevant, no support given by the patent for any claims made as to
does it work in any context or not. The epa creates lists of things
known to kill pests. No doubt onecan find an antibiotic which also
kills pests, in fact I just recalled one that kills bacteria in humans
and destroys the pancreous of rodents.

In addition to idiot and "pharmablogger" are other possible, including
those who see the vacuous logic, poor grasp of science, and a
willingness to embrance anything that appeals to previously held notions
and don't want others to even for a second consider them a source to be
taken seriously.