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

In message , vernon wrote:
wrote in message
u.edu...
"Selenium is leached out of almost all farm soil today."

And what is more alarming is that it contains no laetril at all except
maybe under some fruit trees. Did you ever notice that fruit trees
never get cancer?

Very good addition and cogent to the subject at hand NOT

But both more accurate and much, much, more to the point than
your insulting rants.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+

In message om, PeterB wrote:
Richard Schultz wrote:

Do you think that adding trace amounts of fluoride (a naturally-occuring
element) is harmless?

That wouldn't be a naturally-occuring level of exposure, now would it?

No, it's at lower levels than those found in nature.

Are you suggesting that lower-than-natural fluoride levels are
more dangerous than higher ones?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+

In message , Richard Schultz wrote:

Why is it that whenever someone asks you a question that you can't answer,
you tell him to look in the archives, and yet when someone points out to
you that an answer to your question can be found in the archives, you
refuse to search for it?

Because he's right and they're wrong.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+

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

: With respect to naturally-occuring elements that are not
: nutrients, we have evolved to safely chelate them out of the body when
: exposed to trace amounts, or at least to survive them in trace amounts.

If I give you a trace amount of arsenic every day for a few months,
do you think that you'll still be around to be telling me about how
harmless it is? Would you be willing to undertake the experiment?

That depends. If you keep the dosage to only a few hundred times
that for silver, he should be fine.

Of course, PeterB rejects the "dose makes the poison" rule so
he might be fine with larger amounts.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+

wrote:
"Or that drugs are nutritious."

Or that "alternative drugs" are "nutritional supplements".

I would not personally consume any form of concentrated silver on a
daily basis. Although well distributed in the human food supply, it
should not be considered an essential nutrient. On the other hand, it
is known to destroy pathological microbes, so the question (for me) is
whether a hydrosol can be used short-term to effectively treat viral or
bacterial infections.

Are you getting enough silver? Hey buddy, psssst, here is a silver
nostrum that will take care of all those nutritional silver deficiencies
that cause loss of hair, general lackluster feelings and constipation
and your otherwise humdrum life. This magic in a bottle will perk you
up in no time at all, yeseree! And for a short time only, get two magic
bottles for the price of one, only $39.95 each month for the rest of
your life.

Sounds very much like a drug commercial. At least colloidal silver
(however useless it may be) is unlikely to shorten a person's life.
Despite the unfortunate popularity of this dietary supplement, very few
cases of argyria have been reported. The problem is that people often
look for "magic bullets" in the form of either drugs *or* supplements
(ie., failing to rely on primary nutrition for overall health.) But
proper use of supplements can be an important feature of effective
nutrition for most people.

Got cancer, step right over here to my mexican travel agency and sign up
for the nutritional deficiencies cure, have we gotta a deal for you,
laetril is the thing for you. These modern lifestyles suck the natural
laetril right out of your body and it is almost depleated in the soil.
Ya don't wanna get cancer do you? We will supply you with a laetril
deficiency reversing program and throw a vacation to mexico in to the
bargin. Step right up!!!

Naturally-occuring laetrile has been detected in the flesh of wild
fruit and is still found in the seeds of hybridized fruits. It may
well represent an essential nutrient for the prevention (and treatment)
of cancer. Good studies on its anti-cancer effects have never been
repudiated. As for what industry's products most closely resemble the
"white lightnin" cocktails of the American west, top honors would have
to go to the drug makers, whose "treatment" of disease markers (despite
pain killing effects) is not equivalent to the treatment of disease.

PeterB

Regarding silver nostrums:

"On the other hand, it is known to destroy pathological microbes, so the
question (for me) is whether a hydrosol can be used short-term to
effectively treat viral or bacterial infections."

But the nostrum being touted has chuncks of rusted silver in a mixture
of 5 to 14 parts per million parts of water. It is questionable that
all bottles have any chuncks at that level. In addition, the nostrum
has absolutely zero scientific support. Silver solutions at much much
higher levels used in salves and dressings etc. are common as dirt as
used externally in medicine. Taking a tiny, if any at all, amount
internally has yet to be shown to do anything.

Touting another nostrum:

"Naturally-occuring laetrile has been detected in the flesh of wild
fruit and is still found in the seeds of hybridized fruits. It may well
represent an essential nutrient for the prevention (and treatment) of
cancer. Good studies on its anti-cancer effects have never been
repudiated."

Yes, and as found in those fruit pits is a toxic poisin that caused some
deaths.

You beg a back handed support that no research has shown it not to work,
more on that in a minute. Some supporters of it provided very poor
"studies" about which you said it was "inept", to which we concur.

Later when other studies using quality methods were yused you rejected
them out of hand, quite understandable.

Thus we are left with no studies in support and some showing no benefit.
It is intresting you cling to this infamous poster child for the
"alternative drug" industry. You listed a book about it and in fact
knew little else then the spin the author presented. That he also did
an "anti" medicine and science dance for you was reason enough to be an
laetril advocate. Apparently pride doesn't now allow you to change your
mind, publically at least.

"PeterB" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Or that drugs are nutritious."

Or that "alternative drugs" are "nutritional supplements".

I would not personally consume any form of concentrated silver on a
daily basis. Although well distributed in the human food supply, it
should not be considered an essential nutrient. On the other hand, it
is known to destroy pathological microbes, so the question (for me) is
whether a hydrosol can be used short-term to effectively treat viral or
bacterial infections.

Are you getting enough silver? Hey buddy, psssst, here is a silver
nostrum that will take care of all those nutritional silver deficiencies
that cause loss of hair, general lackluster feelings and constipation
and your otherwise humdrum life. This magic in a bottle will perk you
up in no time at all, yeseree! And for a short time only, get two magic
bottles for the price of one, only $39.95 each month for the rest of
your life.

Sounds very much like a drug commercial.

I have seen many drug commercials worse and never have seen or heard a
colloidal Silver spin like the above.
Colloidal Silver is primarily pushed for its anti biotic / viral capability.
It has been proven over and over in the same manner as prescription drugs
used for the same purposes. Argument surround personal results rather than
test tube results. Every person on this N.G. has been, and seen, and heard
of many who have taken a "solution", prescribed or not, that did AND didn't
work.

At least colloidal silver
(however useless it may be) is unlikely to shorten a person's life.
Despite the unfortunate popularity of this dietary supplement, very few
cases of argyria have been reported. The problem is that people often
look for "magic bullets" in the form of either drugs *or* supplements
(ie., failing to rely on primary nutrition for overall health.) But
proper use of supplements can be an important feature of effective
nutrition for most people.



crapmack is just that.

"Colloidal Silver is primarily pushed for its anti biotic / viral
capability. It has been proven over and over in the same manner as
prescription drugs used for the same purposes. Argument surround
personal results rather than test tube results. Every person on this
N.G. has been, and seen, and heard of many who have taken a "solution",
prescribed or not, that did AND didn't work."

We would be happy to review results showing this form of silver nostrum
works as implied. Let's be clear, not the concentrated form of silver
salves and dressings etc. used and common as dirt but the mixtures where
the main part is water. The rest of the above as a handwaving exercise
requires no response except one word - anecdotal.

wrote in message
u.edu...
"Colloidal Silver is primarily pushed for its anti biotic / viral
capability. It has been proven over and over in the same manner as
prescription drugs used for the same purposes. Argument surround
personal results rather than test tube results. Every person on this
N.G. has been, and seen, and heard of many who have taken a "solution",
prescribed or not, that did AND didn't work."

We would be happy to review results showing this form of silver nostrum
works as implied.

IF you had the slightest interest and with your feigned interest, you would
have done some research.
You are not in the least interested.

Who the HELL is "we".

All you do is argue back without even knowing the differences of solutions
or colloidal solutions. If you haven't done any research on it, exactly
what is your purpose in life ZIP? Why are you in on a discussion.

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

: So post these references into a new thread and we can make a topic out
: of it.

I already have, not that you appear to have read that new thread.

Really? What's the title?

: I promise to read them as time permits.

I'm not going to be holding my breath.

The logic of your "arguments" suggest you've been doing that all along.

: As for your question, I see these warnings with some regularity.

Do they appear on bottles of St. John's Wort?

I don't know, I don't take it.

: On a bottle of nattokinase, for instance, there is a warning that
: the supplement should not be combined with warfarin (coumadin), for
: obvious reasons. The fact of the matter is that nattokinase, not warfarin,
: is far superior (andsafer) than the drug "alternative."

Do you have any evidence for this claim? Are you aware that warfarin is
a derivative of a naturally-occurring substance?

The fact that a drug is derived or modeled on a plant chemical is the
reason for its greater pharmacology, but that is also why it carries
greater risk. Warfarin has a very narrow therapeutic index, meaning
its effective dose is very close to the dose that can be deadly. By
contrast, nattokinase (a popular fermented Japanese food) is a food
supplement with an extremely wide range of therapeutic application,
with no observed toxicity. [ref.
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...t =clnk&cd=3]

: And the correct one is the obvious one: I believe that you cannot have it
: both ways. When I ask you for a reference, your response is that you will
: not do my homework for me (I'm still waiting for where on the web the
: *original paper* by McKinlay and McKinlay, not a secondary source that has
: a one-sentence reference to it, can be found).
:
: The only reason to be concerned with a citation in a newsgroup is so
: that readers have access to publicly documented material. There are
: several published works, all easily referenced on the web, including
: "Public Health at the Crossroads," which contain a discussion of the
: McKinlay study.

I am not asking for a secondary source that has a one-sentence description
of the McKinlay and McKinlay paper. I am asking for the *original paper* --
which *you* cited, giving the original bibliographic reference.

So, go to the library at your university and look it up. You had no
qualms asking me to do the same. I cited exactly what I needed to in
order to make my point. I'm not here to help you make yours.

Here is another one, [ref.
: http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org...t/64/4/564.pdf, page 2.]

Again, this is a second-hand report of what McKinlay and McKinlay claimed,
and disagrees with the assessment that I quoted earlier. What I want to
know is *what did McKinlay and McKinlay themselves actually say*?

And you're so inept that you can't find out without me holding your
hand. Pathetic.

: Every one of these published works has been in agreement with my
: own discussion.

This statement proves that you are either illiterate or a liar.

Based on whose analysis? Yours? You can't even find the study.
Nothing you've said on the subject is even coherent.

: If your purpose is to question how the original data
: was accumulated by the authors, you will have to employ that degree of
: research on your own. I am not here to provide source material to help
: you make your argument.

*You* provided a citation. *You* claimed that every citation provided
must be available on the web to all readers.

No, I said that article titles alone were insufficient to support your
argument and asked for online corroboration. I accept secondary
sources if they are reputable. By contrast, discussions of the
McKinlay research is accessible online, as several references have
proven.

Now you are refusing to
provide the location of the citation while simultaneously demanding that
I give you detailed information on how to locate the citations that I posted.

You're just too dense to see that article titles are not enough to
formulate a response of any kind.

That's called "hypocrisy." You also made an interesting and telling admission.
I want to read the original study because I want to know what the authors
said. You admit that despite your secondary sources, if I were to have
access to the original article, I would find that it supports my point of
view, not yours.

Where on earth did you get that? If it's true, go for it. It will be
an exercise in hilarity.

: If you can't find what you are looking for, that's your problem, not mine.

And yet when *you* can't find what *you* are looking for, that's my
problem as well.

Again, titles are not sufficient for discussion.

: When I provide you with all
: of the information that you need to find the articles in question, you
: claim that you can't be bothered to find them.
:
: You originally said I would have to go to a public library.

That's because that's where they keep the books. Duh.

This is a newsgroup, not a classroom.

: When I post links to web
: pages that have the articles, you mysteriously fail to see the post in
: question.

: No mystery, I had no time that day or the next, and said so. I asked
: politely that you re-post your list in a new thread, where I will be
: happy to devote time to reading those items through the end of the year.

And I pointed out to you that it is easy enough to find the post using
Google -- something that you claim to be more expert at than I am.

I explained to you that you should post this to a separate, topically
coherent thread, and I would respond. Where is it?

: So be reasonable and post your earth-shaking list to a new thread,
: where I can respond. Are you afraid that I will? I think that must be
: it. Why? I promised to be fair and balanced.

I did post it to a new thread, and (quelle surprise) you didn't respond.

What is the title of your thread?

: : In the absence of any logical reason for your
: : refusal, therefore, I can only conclude that you are too stupid to know
: : how to create a thread of your own.
:
: Considering that I have been posting to usenet for upwards of 20 years,
: and considering that *you* don't even know the difference between a
: Message-ID and an email address, I would say that your logical reasoning
: skills in this matter are rather faulty. And if you don't believe me when
: I say that I know how to create a new thread, all you have to do is to do
: a Google search for posts in rec.music.classical.recordings that have
: "Walter" and "Mahler" in the subject line and see who started the most
: recent thread on the topic of whether the two Bruno Walter/Concertgebouw
: recordings of Mahler's 4th are of two different performances, or if one
: was mislabeled.
:
: Someone seems to enjoy responding to having his chain pulled. My, my,
: you are quite the egocentric pompous ass. Where is your sense of
: humor? You are like a moose on skates.

The point that you seem to have missed is that it is not a good idea for
a person whose stupidity is demonstrable (e.g., you) to call someone whose
lack of stupidity is demonstrable (e.g., me) "stupid."

You're babbling. You need a detox. Drink a quart of aloe vera. (I'm
not kidding.)

: : What else can it be? You are too
: : stupid to know how to click the virtual button that allows you to
: : create a new thread,

: I don't post from Google Groups, which you are apparently too "stupid" to
: notice. I post from a university account using the "tin" program running
: under UNIX.

: I don't care if you post from the polar ice cap. All I care about, if
: anything, is whether you have anything to say. So far, you've proven
: that you don't.

So far, I have proven that you have no basis for your arguments; that you
are afraid to defend your sources; that you have something to hide
(presumably the nature of your interest in the "natural medicine" industry);
and that you are completely clueless about how usenet works. If "all
you care about" is whether I have anything to say, why did you post
detailed instructions on how to create a new thread in a newsreader that
I don't use?

: That would make sense if we were after the same thing, but we aren't. I
: just explained that I post references sufficient to support my
: position, whereas you consistently fail to do the same.

You post references that upon examination turn out to have been misquoted
or distorted, or are completely worthless. You also fail to understand
the way scientific debate works. *You* are making a positive claim, and
thus *you* are required to support that claim. If I demonstrate that your
"support" is insufficient, I have demonstrated that your claim remains
unproven even if I have not brought specific sources that demonstrate
that it is wrong.

: Instead, to distract from your own shortcomings, you said I should take
: time from my busy schedule to make a trip to the library and read a list of
: articles not conveniently available to all readers.

You claimed to be interested in the truth. If so, then you should be
willing to look for the articles for your own benefit.

: Then you claimed
: you had posted links to this material the web, yet refused to post the
: list when asked to do so, even with promises that I will now read them.

I stated more than once that I would be happy to mail you copies of the
articles at my own expense. You refused to provide me with a postal
address, even one of a third party who would then give you the articles.

: This tells me you're not only a pompous ass, but a liar to boot. But
: then, all pharmboys are.

Since I offered to provide you with copies of the articles in question,
and *you* refused to accept the offer, it is not I who appears to be
a liar. And considering that it's easy enough to find the post in which
I gave a list of references to web sites (well, to the results of Google
searches to demonstrate how easily PeterB could have found the articles),
your claim that I am a liar is one that is so easily refuted that I wonder
why you bothered making it.

: But since you are such an expert on "evaluating scientific material,"
: perhaps you'd be willing to answer some of the questions that I have put
: to you, such as
:
: o What deficiency disease is caused by insufficient "Vitamin B17" in the
: diet?
:
: If Krebs was right, cancer is the result of such deficiency.

And, as I asked you before, how is it that people who don't take "Vitamin
B17" manage to live to the age of 100 without developing cancer?

: o What is the difference between a Phase I clinical trial, a Phase II
: clinical trial, and a Phase III clinical trial?

: Again, Schultzie, you are trying to make a point. Don't bore me. Just
: make it.

I *have* made it -- you don't know the difference between a Phase I clinical
trial, a Phase II clinical trial, and a Phase III clinical trial. For
someone who is as adamant as you are about the ineffectiveness and danger
of pharmaceuticals, that is a surprising bit of ignorance.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Compared with Man, we have to admit that the insect does not display what
we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, because
where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity."