tangent
01-18-02, 03:14
Ed Jones wrote:
>
> Well folks,
>
> I was pretty skeptical about colloidal silver -- sounds like snake oil
> to me. BUT, I was talking to an M.D. friend on Sunday, and he states
> flatly that this stuff actually works, and works very well.
>
> He wishes he had the time and lab facilities to do the actual
> double-blind studies, etc. But he's seen enough direct evidence to be
> convinced that this stuff is really a very workable anti-biotic, and
> also a pretty decent anti-viral agent.
>
Since your anonymous MD friend doesn't have time to do the studies
himself, you might want to refer him to D. L. Bowen and M. C. Fung's
Silver products for medical indications: risk-benefit assessment.
(J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 1996;34(1):119-126). This will give him
a chance to review what others have done (author's conclusions: "We
emphasize the lack of established effectiveness and potential
toxicity of these products.") (Basically, while he may not
have the time to do studies, they have been done, and they don't
look good for colloidal silver.)
Then you might like to refer him/her to A. O. Berg's Placebos:
a brief review for family physicians (J. Fam. Pract. 1977
Jul;5(1):97-100) which, while a bit dated, is a fairly good
summary.
Since you appear to be posting in good faith, and since it may be
of use in general, I'll note that the placebo effect is probably
largely responsible for the anecdotal reports of colloidal silver
effectiveness. The placebo effect is not negligible - the rule
of thumb is that 1/3 of those given a placebo (which in this
context is a treatment, usually, but not always, a pill such as a
sugar pill, or injection, which is known to have no measurable
effect on the actual causes of an illness) will improve relative
to those not treated, and for some diseases and some populations,
the placebo effect may produce even greater results (although it
can also produce negative effects, usually in around 10% of a
population, and may fall well short of the 1/3 level, especially
in diseases with acute onset). A good deal of study has gone
into designing the right kind of placebos (for a number of
reasons - to match placebos with actual drugs being tested, for
instance). Thus it is known, for instance, that red and yellow
placebos are perceived as stimulants while blue placebos are seen
as depressants. Exactly how placebos work is unclear, but that
they do is well established. (From a survivalism point of view,
this suggests that any treatment that doesn't actually do harm is
probably worthwhile. Of course, treatments that actually work
are best, but...)
What this means with respect to colloidal silver is this - for
those treated with subtoxic doses (and, despite what you may have
read, colloidal silver can and does have some bad side effects),
some percentage will indeed get better even though the colloidal
silver has no direct effect on the organisms causing the problem.
So, why not use colloidal silver? Well, if colloidal silver is
_all_ you have, go ahead - you might get lucky. For that matter,
if you don't have colloidal silver, give some water to the
patient, and tell them you have given them colloidal silver - you
will get lucky just as often. (A few notes here - as a placebo for
colloidal silver used topically, distilled water should be used
in studies - tap water* in the US and many other places has
residual chlorine and other bactericidal chemicals which mean it
will work better than colloidal silver solutions, and so if you
are studying the effects, you will see that a tap water "placebo"
works better than the colloidal silver, which is misleading,
since the tap water, by virtue of actually having a microbicidal
effect, is not a true placebo. Diluted quinine water is a better
placebo for studies involving ingestion, since patients expect
the colloidal silver water to have a different taste than regular
water). Of course, be aware of the potential problems associated
with giving too much colloidal silver. (Also, if the patient
doesn't believe in colloidal silver, give him the water and tell
him you have given him an antibiotic.)
Severe problems do arise when colloidal silver is used _instead_
of otherwise available treatments that have an actual effect.
Then you are going with something that works randomly instead of
something which works systematically (and which works more often
than the placebo). This is bad. It means you may just kill
someone. Likewise, it is not a good idea to stock up on placebos
- they can always be made from scratch. You are better off
spending your money on things that work at a level above that of
placebos.
*Tap water may also include dead and/or living bacteria and even
viruses or virus fragments in amounts sufficient to stimulate
immune responses, further enhancing the therapeutic effects of
plain tap water. Tap water has, in fact, demonstrated some
utility in preventing infection relative to other materials in
controlled studies, unlike colloidal silver.
************************************************** ****************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
--(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")
My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.
Stanley Roberts
>
> Well folks,
>
> I was pretty skeptical about colloidal silver -- sounds like snake oil
> to me. BUT, I was talking to an M.D. friend on Sunday, and he states
> flatly that this stuff actually works, and works very well.
>
> He wishes he had the time and lab facilities to do the actual
> double-blind studies, etc. But he's seen enough direct evidence to be
> convinced that this stuff is really a very workable anti-biotic, and
> also a pretty decent anti-viral agent.
>
Since your anonymous MD friend doesn't have time to do the studies
himself, you might want to refer him to D. L. Bowen and M. C. Fung's
Silver products for medical indications: risk-benefit assessment.
(J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 1996;34(1):119-126). This will give him
a chance to review what others have done (author's conclusions: "We
emphasize the lack of established effectiveness and potential
toxicity of these products.") (Basically, while he may not
have the time to do studies, they have been done, and they don't
look good for colloidal silver.)
Then you might like to refer him/her to A. O. Berg's Placebos:
a brief review for family physicians (J. Fam. Pract. 1977
Jul;5(1):97-100) which, while a bit dated, is a fairly good
summary.
Since you appear to be posting in good faith, and since it may be
of use in general, I'll note that the placebo effect is probably
largely responsible for the anecdotal reports of colloidal silver
effectiveness. The placebo effect is not negligible - the rule
of thumb is that 1/3 of those given a placebo (which in this
context is a treatment, usually, but not always, a pill such as a
sugar pill, or injection, which is known to have no measurable
effect on the actual causes of an illness) will improve relative
to those not treated, and for some diseases and some populations,
the placebo effect may produce even greater results (although it
can also produce negative effects, usually in around 10% of a
population, and may fall well short of the 1/3 level, especially
in diseases with acute onset). A good deal of study has gone
into designing the right kind of placebos (for a number of
reasons - to match placebos with actual drugs being tested, for
instance). Thus it is known, for instance, that red and yellow
placebos are perceived as stimulants while blue placebos are seen
as depressants. Exactly how placebos work is unclear, but that
they do is well established. (From a survivalism point of view,
this suggests that any treatment that doesn't actually do harm is
probably worthwhile. Of course, treatments that actually work
are best, but...)
What this means with respect to colloidal silver is this - for
those treated with subtoxic doses (and, despite what you may have
read, colloidal silver can and does have some bad side effects),
some percentage will indeed get better even though the colloidal
silver has no direct effect on the organisms causing the problem.
So, why not use colloidal silver? Well, if colloidal silver is
_all_ you have, go ahead - you might get lucky. For that matter,
if you don't have colloidal silver, give some water to the
patient, and tell them you have given them colloidal silver - you
will get lucky just as often. (A few notes here - as a placebo for
colloidal silver used topically, distilled water should be used
in studies - tap water* in the US and many other places has
residual chlorine and other bactericidal chemicals which mean it
will work better than colloidal silver solutions, and so if you
are studying the effects, you will see that a tap water "placebo"
works better than the colloidal silver, which is misleading,
since the tap water, by virtue of actually having a microbicidal
effect, is not a true placebo. Diluted quinine water is a better
placebo for studies involving ingestion, since patients expect
the colloidal silver water to have a different taste than regular
water). Of course, be aware of the potential problems associated
with giving too much colloidal silver. (Also, if the patient
doesn't believe in colloidal silver, give him the water and tell
him you have given him an antibiotic.)
Severe problems do arise when colloidal silver is used _instead_
of otherwise available treatments that have an actual effect.
Then you are going with something that works randomly instead of
something which works systematically (and which works more often
than the placebo). This is bad. It means you may just kill
someone. Likewise, it is not a good idea to stock up on placebos
- they can always be made from scratch. You are better off
spending your money on things that work at a level above that of
placebos.
*Tap water may also include dead and/or living bacteria and even
viruses or virus fragments in amounts sufficient to stimulate
immune responses, further enhancing the therapeutic effects of
plain tap water. Tap water has, in fact, demonstrated some
utility in preventing infection relative to other materials in
controlled studies, unlike colloidal silver.
************************************************** ****************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
--(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")
My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.
Stanley Roberts