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

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."

Oh but I have done research, this is not the first time these
unsupported claims have been advanced. Why do I do it? So folk can
have a supported in valid research basis for making up their own minds
seperate from mere "alterblogger" marketing. Consider this for
additional discussion. The entire abstract is below, here is the
conclusion:

"CONCLUSION: As the tested colloidal silver solutions did not show any
antimicrobial effect in vitro on the microorganisms, claims of colloidal
silver's antimicrobial potency are misleading and there is no place for
it
as an antiseptic."

The entire abstract:

[_] 1: J Wound Care. 2004 Apr;13(4):154-5. Books, LinkOut

Colloidal silver as an antimicrobial agent: fact or fiction?

+ van Hasselt P,
+ Gashe BA,
+ Ahmad J.

Ear Clinic, Bamalete Lutheran Hospital, Ramotswa, Botswana.


OBJECTIVE: Colloidal silver preparations are marketed on the
internet as omnipotent antimicrobial agents, but scientific
support for these claims is lacking. This study reports the
results of in vitro tests of colloidal silver's antimicrobial
activity against several pathogenic or non-pathogenic
microorganisms. METHOD: Three samples of colloidal silver were
tested: one available commercially on the internet (silver
concentration of 22 ppm) and two samples (concentrations of 403
and 413 ppm) which were prepared in our laboratory using
standard chemical methods. RESULTS: In an agar-well diffusion
assay none of the three colloidal silver solutions had any
effect on the growth of the test organisms. All tested
bacterial strains were sensitive to ciprofloxacin. Colloidal
silver 22 ppm showed no bactericidal activity in phenol
coefficient tests. CONCLUSION: As the tested colloidal silver
solutions did not show any antimicrobial effect in vitro on the
microorganisms, claims of colloidal silver's antimicrobial
potency are misleading and there is no place for it as an
antiseptic.

PMID: 15114827 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

wrote:
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."

Oh but I have done research, this is not the first time these
unsupported claims have been advanced. Why do I do it? So folk can
have a supported in valid research basis for making up their own minds
seperate from mere "alterblogger" marketing. Consider this for
additional discussion. The entire abstract is below, here is the
conclusion:

"CONCLUSION: As the tested colloidal silver solutions did not show any
antimicrobial effect in vitro on the microorganisms, claims of colloidal
silver's antimicrobial potency are misleading and there is no place for
it
as an antiseptic."

The entire abstract:

[_] 1: J Wound Care. 2004 Apr;13(4):154-5. Books, LinkOut

Colloidal silver as an antimicrobial agent: fact or fiction?

+ van Hasselt P,
+ Gashe BA,
+ Ahmad J.

Ear Clinic, Bamalete Lutheran Hospital, Ramotswa, Botswana.


OBJECTIVE: Colloidal silver preparations are marketed on the
internet as omnipotent antimicrobial agents, but scientific
support for these claims is lacking. This study reports the
results of in vitro tests of colloidal silver's antimicrobial
activity against several pathogenic or non-pathogenic
microorganisms. METHOD: Three samples of colloidal silver were
tested: one available commercially on the internet (silver
concentration of 22 ppm) and two samples (concentrations of 403
and 413 ppm) which were prepared in our laboratory using
standard chemical methods. RESULTS: In an agar-well diffusion
assay none of the three colloidal silver solutions had any
effect on the growth of the test organisms. All tested
bacterial strains were sensitive to ciprofloxacin. Colloidal
silver 22 ppm showed no bactericidal activity in phenol
coefficient tests. CONCLUSION: As the tested colloidal silver
solutions did not show any antimicrobial effect in vitro on the
microorganisms, claims of colloidal silver's antimicrobial
potency are misleading and there is no place for it as an
antiseptic.

PMID: 15114827 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

lmao, good example of how even total crap can be published. This is a
claim that not even the folks on this group would back up. For a better
test with pretty pictures try the link.
ps-the veterans hospitals are already using ASAP silver as an
antiseptic...so much for their "conclusion".

Laboratory Studies Conducted by The University Of North Texas
Product: SilverKare at 15 PPM and 30 PPM
Isolated Colloidal Silver

Time-Kill Study Conducted by UNT
Mark A. Farinha, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology

http://www.silvermedicine.org/colloi...tudytexas.html

"lmao, good example of how even total crap can be published. This is a
claim that not even the folks on this group would back up."

How so?

"For a better test with pretty pictures try the link. ps-the veterans
hospitals are already using ASAP silver as an antiseptic...so much for
their "conclusion"."

Sure va hospitals use their products, but not the 5 to 15 ppm nostrum in
question, they use the otherwise standard and common as dirt higher
concentration silver bandage dressings available from many companies and
adjudged effective by the fda.

Ah, if publication is a benchmark, this was not published at all except
on that page. It provides little information as to methods etc. that
would provide insight into what the tests were and how done and how
that might affect outcomes.. No person looking for proper scientific
results would accept this article.

"Laboratory Studies Conducted by The University Of North Texas
Product: SilverKare at 15 PPM and 30 PPM
Isolated Colloidal Silver

Time-Kill Study Conducted by UNT
Mark A. Farinha, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology

http://www.silvermedicine.org/colloidalsilverstudytexas.html"

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

wrote:
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."

Oh but I have done research, this is not the first time these
unsupported claims have been advanced. Why do I do it? So folk can
have a supported in valid research basis for making up their own minds
seperate from mere "alterblogger" marketing. Consider this for
additional discussion. The entire abstract is below, here is the
conclusion:

"CONCLUSION: As the tested colloidal silver solutions did not show any
antimicrobial effect in vitro on the microorganisms, claims of colloidal
silver's antimicrobial potency are misleading and there is no place for
it
as an antiseptic."

The entire abstract:

[_] 1: J Wound Care. 2004 Apr;13(4):154-5. Books, LinkOut

Colloidal silver as an antimicrobial agent: fact or fiction?

+ van Hasselt P,
+ Gashe BA,
+ Ahmad J.

Ear Clinic, Bamalete Lutheran Hospital, Ramotswa, Botswana.


OBJECTIVE: Colloidal silver preparations are marketed on the
internet as omnipotent antimicrobial agents, but scientific
support for these claims is lacking. This study reports the
results of in vitro tests of colloidal silver's antimicrobial
activity against several pathogenic or non-pathogenic
microorganisms. METHOD: Three samples of colloidal silver were
tested: one available commercially on the internet (silver
concentration of 22 ppm) and two samples (concentrations of 403
and 413 ppm) which were prepared in our laboratory using
standard chemical methods. RESULTS: In an agar-well diffusion
assay none of the three colloidal silver solutions had any
effect on the growth of the test organisms. All tested
bacterial strains were sensitive to ciprofloxacin. Colloidal
silver 22 ppm showed no bactericidal activity in phenol
coefficient tests. CONCLUSION: As the tested colloidal silver
solutions did not show any antimicrobial effect in vitro on the
microorganisms, claims of colloidal silver's antimicrobial
potency are misleading and there is no place for it as an
antiseptic.

PMID: 15114827 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

lmao, good example of how even total crap can be published. This is a
claim that not even the folks on this group would back up. For a better
test with pretty pictures try the link.
ps-the veterans hospitals are already using ASAP silver as an
antiseptic...so much for their "conclusion".

Laboratory Studies Conducted by The University Of North Texas
Product: SilverKare at 15 PPM and 30 PPM
Isolated Colloidal Silver

Time-Kill Study Conducted by UNT
Mark A. Farinha, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology

http://www.silvermedicine.org/colloi...tudytexas.html


Yep, the high end in unbiased and knowledgeable info "Medline",,, he he he
he he he
Their "customers" are Doctors and hospitals

They are still in early 1990s about cholesterol and heart disease.

In misc.health.alternative PeterB wrote:
: 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?

You are the self-proclaimed expert at using Google. Find it yourself.

: 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 already explained to you that that issue of _The Millbank Quarterly_
is not available in our library. I have also explained to you that you
cannot have it both ways: either it is acceptable to send people to the
library, in which case, you have no grounds for complaint when I do it; or
it is not acceptable, in which case, your doing so is hypocrisy plain and
simple. The lameness of your attempt to obscure the fact that you haven't
read the article in question has been noted.

: I cited exactly what I needed to in
: order to make my point. I'm not here to help you make yours.

You did not cite "exactly what you needed," since you have yet to provide
a quotation from the article itself, and the book to which you referred
me says the exact opposite of what you claim that the article does.

: 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.

I could easily find out what the article says -- after all, *I* was the
one who discovered that you had been misspelling the names of the authors,
which strongly implies that I could obtain a copy of the article if I
wanted to. The point is that you don't know what the article says, because
you are citing an article that you yourself have not read.

: : 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.

Based on the quote that I have posted at least three times by now, which
specifically and explicitly states the opposite of what you claim McKinlay
and McKinlay said about vaccination.

: *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.

No, you said, in article . com
(posted less than a week ago),

### The only reason to be concerned with a citation in a newsgroup is so that
### readers have access to publicly documented material.

: I accept secondary sources if they are reputable.

No one is interested in what *you* consider to be "reputable." Especially
given your penchant for distorting the contents of any text you cite,
whether it be a primary or a secondary source.

: 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?

You are the one who claims to be such an expert, while I am (in your
words) just a "newbie." If you can't find the thread, that's only
further evidence of your incompetence.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot,
but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot."

Regarding a Colloidal silver research abstract reporting it has no
effect:

"Yep, the high end in unbiased and knowledgeable info "Medline",,, he he
he he he he Their "customers" are Doctors and hospitals

They are still in early 1990s about cholesterol and heart disease.""

Medline is a search enjine, not a reference source. It searches
scientific journals just as google searches the web generally. Medline
has no opinion on Colloidal silver or any other topic but only returns
those abstracts which include it. You may if you wish look among those
returns for an example where Colloidal silver is shown to be effective.

The article presented by a Colloidal silver manufacture did not appear
on a medline search because it is neither a formal research study nor
did it appear in any publication. It only appears on the company web
site which makes it, and one presumes who paid for the information.

It's contents are quite irregular as to describing rather standard bits
of information any formal research study routinely presents, it looks
like at best a lab notebook entry. For all we know for the types of
bacteria used just putting them in water kills them, or in air, or for
any of any number of resons seperate from the presence of silver in such
tiny amounts. One can not know these things because this otherwise
standard bit of information is not presented or discussed. It has no
scientific value because it lacks so much supporting information by
which to evaluate the results.

wrote:
Regarding a Colloidal silver research abstract reporting it has no
effect:

"Yep, the high end in unbiased and knowledgeable info "Medline",,, he he
he he he he Their "customers" are Doctors and hospitals

They are still in early 1990s about cholesterol and heart disease.""

Medline is a search enjine, not a reference source. It searches
scientific journals just as google searches the web generally. Medline
has no opinion on Colloidal silver or any other topic but only returns
those abstracts which include it. You may if you wish look among those
returns for an example where Colloidal silver is shown to be effective.

The article presented by a Colloidal silver manufacture did not appear
on a medline search because it is neither a formal research study nor
did it appear in any publication. It only appears on the company web
site which makes it, and one presumes who paid for the information.

It's contents are quite irregular as to describing rather standard bits
of information any formal research study routinely presents, it looks
like at best a lab notebook entry. For all we know for the types of
bacteria used just putting them in water kills them, or in air, or for
any of any number of resons seperate from the presence of silver in such
tiny amounts. One can not know these things because this otherwise
standard bit of information is not presented or discussed. It has no
scientific value because it lacks so much supporting information by
which to evaluate the results.

Would you PLEASE do your homework. Your about two years behind the
times. Here's another reality check for you.

ASAP-AGX-32™

The ASAP-AGX-32™ product (GSA # GS-07F-0826N) is a fully EPA approved
surface disinfectant product. The ASAP-AGX-32™ is approved for
disinfectant use in:
* Hospital operating rooms
* Any medical facility
* Industrial facilities
* Commercial facilities
* Residential or home uses

http://www.tpromo.com/manfull/microbe.htm

wrote in message
u.edu...
Regarding a Colloidal silver research abstract reporting it has no
effect:

"Yep, the high end in unbiased and knowledgeable info "Medline",,, he he
he he he he Their "customers" are Doctors and hospitals

They are still in early 1990s about cholesterol and heart disease.""

Medline is a search enjine, not a reference source. It searches
scientific journals just as google searches the web generally. Medline
has no opinion on Colloidal silver or any other topic but only returns
those abstracts which include it. You may if you wish look among those
returns for an example where Colloidal silver is shown to be effective.

The article presented by a Colloidal silver manufacture did not appear
on a medline search because it is neither a formal research study nor
did it appear in any publication.

MEDLINE caters STRICTLY to Doctors and Hospitals and Labs. NOTE (MED)
(LINE)
They would publish anything outside the accepted (formal ha ha ha) research.
I think they are the largest in their feild. They MUST cater to their
customers, nothing wrong, just reality.

It only appears on the company web
site which makes it, and one presumes who paid for the information.

It's contents are quite irregular as to describing rather standard bits
of information any formal research study routinely presents, it looks
like at best a lab notebook entry. For all we know for the types of
bacteria used just putting them in water kills them, or in air, or for
any of any number of resons seperate from the presence of silver in such
tiny amounts. One can not know these things because this otherwise
standard bit of information is not presented or discussed. It has no
scientific value because it lacks so much supporting information by
which to evaluate the results.

"Would you PLEASE do your homework. Your about two years behind the
times. Here's another reality check for you.

ASAP-AGX-32=99

The ASAP-AGX-32=99 product (GSA # GS-07F-0826N) is a fully EPA approved
surface disinfectant product. The ASAP-AGX-32=99 is approved for
disinfectant use in:
* Hospital operating rooms
* Any medical facility
* Industrial facilities
* Commercial facilities
* Residential or home uses"

As mentioned a number of times now, silvir containing products are as
common as dirt in such uses as salves and dressings etc. as might be
used in hospitals and approved by the fta for that use. The fda accepts
for approval only products know to work based on scientific testing.

The above has epa approval for non body uses but is in the fda pipleline
for such similar medical application. Which means it too can be shown
to be by test effective as claimed.

We come back to the problem, the silver containing nostrum of the thread
is nothing at all like these products in the level of silver involved.
The same company sells a silver product with the same kind of tiny
amounts mixed in water of silver and call it a mineral supplement or
some such, they know they can never never like their other products show
it works as a medical product like they do to either the epa or fda and
are not even trying.

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

You are the self-proclaimed expert at using Google. Find it yourself.

In other words, you didn't post it. How telling.

: 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 already explained to you that that issue of _The Millbank Quarterly_
is not available in our library. I have also explained to you that you
cannot have it both ways: either it is acceptable to send people to the
library, in which case, you have no grounds for complaint when I do it; or
it is not acceptable, in which case, your doing so is hypocrisy plain and
simple. The lameness of your attempt to obscure the fact that you haven't
read the article in question has been noted.

The idiocy of your attempts to make me the subject of your posts has
been noted. Your lies and distortions have also been duly noted.

: I cited exactly what I needed to in
: order to make my point. I'm not here to help you make yours.

You did not cite "exactly what you needed," since you have yet to provide
a quotation from the article itself, and the book to which you referred
me says the exact opposite of what you claim that the article does.

Here, again, from our earlier exchange, is proof that you are lying,
and doing so deliberately on behalf of your sponsors:

++++

PeterB: The statement in the book reads exactly as I said: "...it has
been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in
mortality in the United States of America between 1900 and 1973 could
be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the major infectious
diseases." The distortion is your claim that it does not mean what it
says.

Scultzie: In the book that *you* cited as citing McKinlay and
McKinlay, the above sentence is *immediately* *followed* by the
following one:

On the other hand, targeted public health interventions
*including vaccination* [emphasis mine], personal
hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care
services, were of major importance.

PeterB: There is no contradiction. The earlier statement was
expressly a reference to mortality, whereas the latter statement makes
no such reference. This portion of the paragraph simply says that such
inititiatives were of "major importance." In terms of healthcare, many
medical researchers still believe that vaccine is preventive, however
the research cited by these authors shows that vaccine was not
responsible for most of the decline in infectious disease *mortality.*
The point is that you cannot have a dramatic reduction in infectious
disease mortality without a dramatic reduction in the severity of the
disease response. There is no way around that. Do explain what
"radically different" conclusion (your words) you believe the authors
came to. Read the actual excerpt and then read my paraphrase, and tell
us where they differ. [Schultzie enver responded to this because he
could not.]

Schulzie: The authors of the chapter in _Public Health at the
Crossroads_ in which the reference to McKinlay and McKinlay appears
follow that reference by an explicit statement that vaccination was of
"major importance" in lowering the mortality rate in the U.S. during
the 20th century. That is (I would think fairly obviously) the exact
opposite of what you write above.

PeterB: The words "of major importance in lowering the mortality
rate..." are your words, not those of the authors, and you know it.
You are, once again deliberately distorting what the research says,
proving you are here to promote vaccine.

+++++

: 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.

I could easily find out what the article says -- after all, *I* was the
one who discovered that you had been misspelling the names of the authors,
which strongly implies that I could obtain a copy of the article if I
wanted to.

So you admit that discussion of the facts is not important to you. Of
course, I knew this. You are here to promote the nostrums of your
masters, and to do that you must distort the facts and misquote me and
others. How telling.

The point is that you don't know what the article says, because
you are citing an article that you yourself have not read.

I am in no way obliged to prove anything to you, pharmboy. Neither
will I do your homework. Whatever ammunition you think you have the
brains to construct here in the newsgroups is completely up to you. So
far, you've proven to be a witless debater with nothing but your script
to guide you. 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.

Based on the quote that I have posted at least three times by now, which
specifically and explicitly states the opposite of what you claim McKinlay
and McKinlay said about vaccination.

Liar. You butchered the quote in order to make it read as you wished.
Here it is again, not paraphrased, from the beginning: "...it has been
estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in *mortality*
[emphasis mine] in the United States of America between 1900 and 1973
could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the major
infectious diseases. On the other hand, targeted public health
interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
improved child health care services, were of major importance." The
authors are not retracting their own assessment (or that of the
McKinlay study cited by them) that vaccine had very little (if any)
impact on declines in infectious disease mortality for a period of
nearly 75 years. Rather, they were acknowledging that vaccine may be
prophylactic *after* the fact (though no RCT data was provided to
support such a view.) The real point is that one cannot have a
dramatic reduction in infectious disease mortality without a dramatic
reduction in the severity of the disease response, and all of this
happened before most vaccines were ever introduced.

: *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.

No, you said, in article . com
(posted less than a week ago),

### The only reason to be concerned with a citation in a newsgroup is so that
### readers have access to publicly documented material.

The material I cited *is* publicly documented. I never said secondary
refrences from reputable sources shouldn't be used. By contrast, you
offered nothing but a set of titles and I had every right to object (on
behalf of myself and every other reader.). Instead of proving
legitimate interest in the subject matter, you've used this silliness
to engage in personal attacks against me, belying the claim that you
"stumbled accidentally onto mha."

: I accept secondary sources if they are reputable.

No one is interested in what *you* consider to be "reputable." Especially
given your penchant for distorting the contents of any text you cite,
whether it be a primary or a secondary source.

Readers can decide that for themselves. Unlike you, I'm not here to
tell people what to think, nor am I here to promote myself.

: 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?

You are the one who claims to be such an expert, while I am (in your
words) just a "newbie." If you can't find the thread, that's only
further evidence of your incompetence.

In other words, the "Warning" post describes your behaviour perfectly.
If I'm wrong, post the subject header of your post and I'll respond as
promised. Otherwise, say hello to your sponsors for me.

PeterB