Colloidal Silver

[ImprobableJoe]

This most recent part of the thread, led by khronikos's unfounded, illogical, and downright silly claims, reminds me of this fun link: Unified theory of the crank

 

[scalyblue]

nonreligious gish gallop.

Medication is a give and take scenario, all beneficial medications have deleterious effects. The focus is to maximize the benefit while minimizing the damage. Heavy metals may be toxic to bacteria, but that is because they are toxic to a vast majority of cells. There are other compounds that are much more effective in vivio antibiotics while having much less of a negative impact.

What makes you think that the heavy metal toxicity is choosing any bacterial cells over the human cells in your body?

How are you sure of the actual dosage you are taking; what regulatory agency is accountable for your preparation?

Given your belief that this supposed silver suspension is necessary for you to be and feel healthful, can you explain all of the healthy people who feel healthful despite the absence of any silver in their environments? This raises the question of what you believe the essential role of silver in human biochemistry?

Given your belief that silver's role as a heavy metal is beneficial to the human condition, what about other heavy metals like plumbum and mercury?

Given your belief that ancient medical beliefs hold credence, please explain the evidential correlation between modern medical discoveries and average human lifespan.

If you take conspiracy theories as the foundation of evidential claims, why don't the silver miners fund their own research and make their product more valuable than gold?

Opinions, stated by you or others are not data. Even if the others are doctors.

Peer-reviewed research comprises data, but it likely does not comprise the data you think it does.

As far as your other claims, by your metrics, the fact that Dylan Avery, his friends, and his family are still alive is proof that a 9/11 conspiracy is bullshit.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Another point to make about the psychology of conspiracy nutters is that to them conspiracies are like Pokemonses, and they try to catch them all. If these dips were just convinced that colloidal silver worked, it would be a case of someone just being wrong and ignorant of reality. When someone is a 9-11 Twoofer, anti-vax, supports quack medicine of multiple stripes, and so on... that's more than wrong and ignorant. At that point, you're looking at someone with a mental defect that forces them to automatically and unthinkingly reject big chunks of reality, in favor of what is best described as "all of the stupidest ideas imaginable."

We're talking about a combination of deep paranoia, persecution complexes, delusions of grandeur, narcissism, massive cognitive dissonance, antisocial tendencies, and what in some cases seems to be almost a schizophrenic break from reality. It goes far beyond "goofball on the Internet believes something dumb"... that's Libertarians. :lol:

 

[SpaceCDT]

It goes far beyond "goofball on the Internet believes something dumb"... that's Libertarians. :lol:

oHAHAHAHAHAR aren't we an excellent comedian.
Get boned!

 

[borrofburi]

MOD NOTE:

WHERE IS IT! WHO MADE IT UP! WHY IS IT REFUTED BY http://www.ae911truth.org/

Hmm.... didn't I warn you about off topic posts?

Mod Note:

Also off-topic posts are technically against the rules, and while we tend not to care much, this particular set of rants is quickly resulting in a parallel thread. So either create a new thread for 9/11 discussion, drop that conversation, or face the wrath of the forum moderators.

looks like I did.

Unfortunately all this off topic stuff is so very entwined together, that I don't even know if I can split this into the 3 or 4 threads it needs to be. I'll say it once again: create new threads for your other discussions (I'm seeing 911, aids and hiv, and potentially homeopathy), drop those conversations, or face the wrath of the forum mods...

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

It goes far beyond "goofball on the Internet believes something dumb"... that's Libertarians. :lol:

oHAHAHAHAHAR aren't we an excellent comedian.
Get boned!

These are the moments I wish we could upvote posts. I love you, Joe. No homo.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You people are going to have to read and think for yourselves. I am not your mammy. It's not a hundred pages. It's a couple. Can't read. That's your problem. This is discussion. Not khronikos prove everything that ever happened in the world on our great forums so all of us can debunk you with our very own opinions.

Yes, dude, you actually have to put effort into your posts. You can't just get people to agree with you by telling them to read stuff.

"I can't find a single virologist who will give me references which show that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. On an issue as important as this there should be a set of scientific documents somewhere, research papers written by people who are accessible, demonstrating this. But they are not available. If you ask a virologist for that information, you don't get an answer, you get fury." (The Sunday Times, April 26, 1992).

Science has moved on in the last 20 years.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01910.x/full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406015a0.html

* The hypothesis has been a total failure in terms of producing health benefits.

Yeah, HIV denialism is part of the cause of high infection rates in South Africa:
http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/107/427/157

Oh... you meant the other way, didn't you. Nope, HIV research lead to effective anti-viral treatments.

http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7340/757.full

* Over 150 chimpanzees have been infected with HIV by the National Institutes of Health during the past nine years. All are still healthy.

Diseases work differently in different species. Come on, man, this is third-grade biology.

* "AIDS" is not a new disease; there is in fact no such disease as "AIDS." 25 previously known and unrelated diseases have been conveniently lumped together and redefined as "AIDS."

AIDS isn't a disease, it's a syndrome.

* In the case of infectious diseases, the "infectious agents multiply exponentially in susceptible hosts until stopped by immunity." The victim becomes ill within a few days or weeks. The "AIDS-defined diseases" do not follow this pattern.

They sure don't, since the compromised immune system doesn't function and the victim dies.

* After infection with HIV, the immune system neutralizes the virus, creating antibodies. The presence of antibodies indicate successful neutralization or immunity. "Once stopped by immunity, conventional viruses and microbes are no longer pathogenic. There is no reason to believe that a neutralized virus can cause a disease five or ten years later. "...low pathogenicity by a neutralized virus has never been experimentally proven. The "AIDS-defined diseases" follow the pattern of cumulative build-up of toxins, "[f]or example, lung cancer and emphysema are 'acquired' only after 10-20 years of smoking, and liver cirrhosis is 'acquired' only after 10-20 years of alcoholism."

Antibodies work by wrapping up the shell of a virus, preventing its receptors from linking with target sites. HIV works by altering and shielding its receptors, rendering this antibody strategy less then fully effective. It's like carrying around a heavy weight on your back; it's not going to crush your spine, but it'll slow you down enough for other things to attack you.

* The "AIDS-defined diseases" are all incompatible with the classical criteria of infectious disease. For example, HIV is not present in all AIDS patients - there are several thousand AIDS patients with no HIV. "...AIDS does not meet even one of the classical criteria of infectious disease." (Koch's postulates.)

"As Dr Duesberg has pointed out, quite a lot of people (mostly in the early 1980s) have been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA despite never taking an HIV test, and nobody knows whether these people were HIV-positive or not. However, based on the much larger sample of people who have been tested, Koch's first postulate has certainly been satisfied"
http://www.avert.org/hiv-causes-aids.htm

* "Since on average only 0.1% (1 out of 500 to 3000) of T-cells are ever infected by HIV in AIDS patients, but at least 3% of all T-cells are regenerated during the two days it takes a retrovirus to infect a cell, HIV could never kill enough T-cells to cause immunodeficiency. Thus even if HIV killed every infected T-cell, it could deplete T-cells only at 1/30 of their normal rate of regeneration, let alone activated regeneration. The odds of HIV causing T-cell deficiency would be the same as those of a bicycle rider trying to catch up with a jet airplane."

Not so. Certain classes of T cells are wiped out quickly, which compromises the entire system.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W7H-4JWMT81-2&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32ef9c68509b35c17de1cb1a0de9b4dc&searchtype=a

* "...[T]here are over 40-times more HIV-infected leukocytes in many healthy HIV carriers than in AIDS patients with fatal AIDS."

* "...[T]here is no trace of HIV in any Kaposi's sarcomas and there is no HIV in neurons of patients with dementia, because of the generic inability of retroviruses to infect nondividing cells like neurons."

Yep, that's how the disease functions. It doesn't kill directly, just compromises you enough for other things to have a chance.

* All the "AIDS-defined diseases" occur in the absence of HIV. This is very strong evidence that something other than HIV causes them, and that the presence or absence of HIV is irrelevant to these diseases.

* "Leading AIDS researchers acknowledge that correlations are the only support for the virus-AIDS hypothesis." But correlation does not prove causation. The fact that the "AIDS-defined diseases" occur in the absence of HIV, and HIV occurs in the absence of the "AIDS-defined diseases," strongly suggest that the correlation is irrelevant.

... This guy clearly doesn't understand how correlation works. It doesn't have to be total, just significant.

* In fact, the alleged correlation with HIV is not a correlation with HIV at all, but with HIV antibodies, the presence of which indicates that the immune system has successfully neutralized the HIV. "Natural antiviral antibodies, or vaccination, against HIV - which completely neutralize HIV to virtually undetectable levels - are consistently diagnosed in AIDS patients with the 'AIDS test.'"

This is a little over my head, but here you go:
http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/denialists/giraldo-immunoassays

* No exceptions have so far been found in virology to the rule that the presence of antibodies indicates that the virus has been neutralized and rendered harmless.

* In practically every human cell there are between 100 and 150 chronically latent human retroviruses and parasites. None of these "are fatal and nearly all are harmless to a normal immune system."

"This is the way it's been and nothing can ever change that"? This is the exact opposite of science.

* The HIV virus has existed in America for a long time - maybe centuries or longer. "Ever since antibodies against HIV were first detected by the 'AIDS test' in 1985, the number of antibody-positive Americans has been fixed at a constant population of 1 million, or 0.4%." This is an infallible indication that HIV is not new and has been around for a long time. [HIV has been found in frozen blood samples dating back to at least 1959.]

... Yeah, so? Viruses can go undetected for long stretches of time, that doesn't prove anything. HIV globally has spread rapidly over the last 10 years:
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

* Clinical studies indicate that transmission of AIDS occurs in the order of once in every 1000 sexual contacts. No virus could survive if it depended on such inefficient transmission. Instead, transmission from mother to child is estimated to occur 13-50% of the time. [Rock Hudson's lover, Marc Christian, survived an estimated 600 unprotected sexual encounters with the infected Hudson without contracting HIV or any illness.]

It's actually a bit higher then that:
"The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. Complacency about HIV plays a key role in HIV risk.[3][4] Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the genital, oral, or rectal mucous membranes of another. In high-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.04% per act and male-to-female transmission is 0.08% per act. For various reasons, these rates are 4 to 10 times higher in low-income countries.[30] The rate for receptive anal intercourse is much higher, 1.7% per act.[30]" -Wikipedia

It's a low risk individually, but collectively with hundreds of millions of sex acts going on every day the aggregate transmission rate is quite high.

* Generally, proponents of the virus-AIDS hypothesis claim that HIV attacks the immune system, causing immunodeficiency, which leaves the body more or less helpless against AIDS disease. "However, immunodeficiency is not a common denominator of all AIDS diseases. About 38% of all AIDS diseases, i.e. dementia, wasting disease, Kaposi's sarcoma and lymphoma are neither caused by, nor necessarily associated with, immunodeficiency."

Definitions have since tightened, this objection is simply out of date.

* Generally, proponents of the virus-AIDS hypothesis claim that HIV kills T-cells. However, there is no evidence for this assumption. "The hallmark of retrovirus replication is to convert the viral RNA into DNA and to deliberately integrate this DNA as a parasite gene into the cellular DNA. This process of integration depends on mitosis [cell division] to succeed, rather than on cell death." In other words, for HIV to survive, the cells it infects have to survive. "HIV, like all other retroviruses, does not specifically infect T-cells. It also infects monocytes, epithelial cells, B-cells, glial cells and macrophages, etc. and none of these are killed by HIV."

Again:
"The traditional view of HIV-1 infection characterized by the slow decline of CD4+ T cells has radically changed in light of recent observations in rhesus macaques and humans of rapid and extensive infection and removal of memory CD4+ T cells in mucosal tissues within the first three weeks of infection. This initial strike to the immune system seems to be the distinguishing feature of HIV-1 pathogenesis and its extent sets the overall course of the ensuing infection. Qualitatively different mechanisms of CD4+ T-cell depletion prevail during the acute, chronic and advanced phases of infection depending on the availability of the target-cell population and competence of the immune system. The elimination of CD4+ T cells in mucosal lymphoid tissues results in the absence of important regulatory and effector functions that these cells normally perform in controlling immune responses to environmental antigens and pathogens. Ablation of acute HIV-1 viremia limits the initial damage to the CD4+ T-cell compartment and helps to establish a state of equilibrium between the replicating virus, the availability of the target-cell population and the immune control characteristic of long-term non-progression."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W7H-4JWMT81-2&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32ef9c68509b35c17de1cb1a0de9b4dc&searchtype=a

* Some proponents of the virus-AIDS hypothesis claim that HIV is so deadly because it mutates endlessly into new variations, with which the immune system can't "catch up." "...[T]here is no precedent for an immune system that has been able to neutralize a virus completely and is then unable to catch up with an occasional subsequent mutation. If viruses in general could evade the immune system by mutation, the immune system would be a useless burden to the host... [A]ntigenically new variants of HIV have never been observed in American and European AIDS patients..."

* Some proponents of the virus-AIDS hypothesis claim that HIV changes infected cells so they export protein toxins, causing diseases like Kaposi's sarcoma and dementia. "By contrast, all other known bacterial, animal and human viruses, including retroviruses, are only able to kill those cells they infect, because viruses are manufactured inside cells and would not benefit from proteins released to uninfected cells."

Again the argument is, "this hasn't been seen before and is therefore impossible", which is silly.

* Ryan White was a hemophiliac who died from unstoppable internal bleeding. He took AZT which probably hastened his death. There is no evidence that he died from HIV.

* Kimberley Bergalis took AZT "until she died in December 1991 with weight loss (15 kg), hair loss, uncontrollable candidiasis, anemia and muscle atrophy (requiring a wheelchair) - the symptoms of chronic AZT toxicity... [T]he assumption that Bergalis died from HIV is pure speculation."

Wow, two cases! If only there were a large, controlled study on the effectiveness of these oh wait

"n the first analysis, which involved 8362 patients, 2084 (25%) initiated therapy at a CD4+ count of 351 to 500 cells per cubic millimeter, and 6278 (75%) deferred therapy. After adjustment for calendar year, cohort of patients, and demographic and clinical characteristics, among patients in the deferred-therapy group there was an increase in the risk of death of 69%, as compared with that in the early-therapy group (relative risk in the deferred-therapy group, 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 2.26; P<0.001). In the second analysis involving 9155 patients, 2220 (24%) initiated therapy at a CD4+ count of more than 500 cells per cubic millimeter and 6935 (76%) deferred therapy. Among patients in the deferred-therapy group, there was an increase in the risk of death of 94% (relative risk, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.79; P<0.001)."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0807252


(Anti-AZT rant)

Innuendo, nothing more. Studies, man, do you have studies?

 

[Aught3]

* Over 150 chimpanzees have been infected with HIV by the National Institutes of Health during the past nine years. All are still healthy.

Diseases work differently in different species. Come on, man, this is third-grade biology.

Actually Arthur, chimpanzees are used as the animal model for this disease and will develop AIDS after infection with HIV (satisfying the rest of Koch's postulates btw). What's interesting about the claim is the time line given - nine years. This could easily be true as it consistently takes about ten years for the serious health effects of an HIV infection to start being noticed. It was a brilliant piece of manipulation to try and draw a false conclusion from solid scientific data.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

* Over 150 chimpanzees have been infected with HIV by the National Institutes of Health during the past nine years. All are still healthy.

Diseases work differently in different species. Come on, man, this is third-grade biology.

Actually Arthur, chimpanzees are used as the animal model for this disease and will develop AIDS after infection with HIV (satisfying the rest of Koch's postulates btw). What's interesting about the claim is the time line given - nine years. This could easily be true as it consistently takes about ten years for the serious health effects of an HIV infection to start being noticed. It was a brilliant piece of manipulation to try and draw a false conclusion from solid scientific data.

Heh! I love the duplicity of it. "We can clearly see that people who jump from a plane at 6000 feet are completely uninjured after 5000 feet, therefore falling deaths are a sham."

 

[khronikos]

How many times does it need be said that there is no conversation going on here. Never will be. You talk amongst yourselves on one side of a wall. You just did it again. How can you not see this. You just took some information and made anecdotal statements about it, postulating your own theory about why it may be wrong. You see you are not a scientist involved in research your own opinions don't hold any water. That is why this is fun get it? Then you go on a website tangent to list a variety of sources. You realize this will never end, right? You are that intelligent?

I also find it HILARIOUS that you are arguing with a world renowned scientist with a huge list of accolades who sacrificed his career to provide information as to what he thinks and others as well is a theory that has never been corrected. It is still a theory you know. IT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN!

He also is STILL a leading researcher in Cancer. This guy is considered a genius. But apparently you have more important theories and evidence than this guy. Dude, you really honestly believe that you are more qualified than this guy? I really don't know what to say. You are not more qualified by any stretch of any imagination. You have never done any research into AIDS or cancer that is valuable or that is award winning or really ANY AT ALL. You listed a couple tiny studies with some decent info that you have no connection with. GOOD JOB. Does this change anything. NO, it doesn't. Sorry. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

Heavy metals have already been proven as a WRONG term to use. Of course you wouldn't know this because you people don't bother to read anything in the thread. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bndtrJ2RRQ0J:www.degradableplasticbag.com/Default.aspx%3Fapp%3DLeadgenDownload%26shortpath%3Ddocs%252FJT-DCC-E-Heavy%2BMetal%2BA%2BMeaningless%2BTerm.pdf+Heavy+metals+name+based+on+density+not+toxicity&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj1zjLlCl49AdSo0Fbgtw0150_GWEmYm-QRbkIuArzZT9WMXQB0GG666aY-ly96DQ4lSR6TfjeK-SRtPRlxBMeG1FmvbJIa48vz8IDkTKA-hgLONuP3uj2aKdsEuffI2l6zr3nx&sig=AHIEtbTz7O-5zQ6aNcoZwgDBwq9D9HK86w

Wow, if you bothered to read anything about what you are talking about you would realize the term is pointless. It's based mostly on density. This does not mean it's toxic at all. Zilch proof.

You people for the most part just keep spitting out stuff and agreeing with yourselves. Again, I don't how many fucking times I have to say this. I do not agree with the theories of HIV AIDS connections nor do I disagree with them. How could I say anything beyond this? I have never been involved with the research directly unlike 9/11 where I have personal links to people with a lot of valuable information as do a lot of people who have friends in New York in the industry.

I was posting information that leads me to theorize there are and will always be fundamental problems with the original isolation. This is not a belief. Some of you would do so well to learn how to fucking read. And yet and yet here we are. It's like you people are addicted to some kind of gang psychopathy on your little website here.

I keep coming back here because I get a kick out of people trying to be scientists when they are blatantly trying to stroke their ego's, and the fact that you still think that you are arguing with ME is just beyond comprehension unless we are talk about 9/11. I have already stated I don't know anything about homeopathy. Yet it has already been provided by yourselves that I am a strict believer in it? All I do is post information and give an idea as to my OPINION about the piece. Except for 9/11 of course. And nobody here as given any evidence to the contrary about 9/11 nor will they because no real evidence exists except the shoddy yellow journalism of popular mechanics (zero scientific evidence btw, an obvious and horribly written piece with no proof or evidence whatsoever a chimp could have done better) or a government sponsored cover up whereby there was a commission drawn to do nothing but interview and get zero actual information from the people it was supposed to be looking at as covering the whole thing up, e.g. Dick Cheney, etc.

Anyway, I do get kicks from coming here. Fun stuff for me at least. I love how it has been put into stone that I use CS all the time and need it for my health too. While you guys are at it why don't you start making up some more bullshit so when I come back here I can have a good healthy laugh. I don't even take CS atm nor do I need it for my health lol. You all seem to be too angry and diligent in your 'scientific' analysis to be of much fun.

Diseases work differently in different species. Come on, man, this is third-grade biology. Uhh, really, and this is why we use these animals in all major disease studied. And then of course you go above and beyond this to compute your own theory as to why it takes 10 years. Mmkay there guy. You work for John Hopkins I take it? And then again we have the studies.... Oh yeah, here I'll just whip out these studies that the whole establishment refuses to fund even though multiple people including nobel laureates have directly asked for them to be funded in the name of D's research. Nobel Laureates defending him and his research. Yet nobody will fund a study. There is too much to hang on the billions spent already on HIV to fund a study that would call anything into question. How many people would lose their jobs. Anyway, toodles.

 

[Aught3]

And then of course you go above and beyond this to compute your own theory as to why it takes 10 years. Mmkay there guy. You work for John Hopkins I take it?

No, but I can read.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Heavy metals have already been proven as a WRONG term to use. Of course you wouldn't know this because you people don't bother to read anything in the thread. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... wq9D9HK86w

What do YOU think this paper says? It's just someone complaining about imprecise terminology, it doesn't mean that silver isn't dangerous at high concentrations.

Oh yeah, here I'll just whip out these studies that the whole establishment refuses to fund even though multiple people including nobel laureates have directly asked for them to be funded in the name of D's research.

Yep, kindly do. Until then, you got nothin'. "The gubbmint stole/won't fund my research" doesn't fly with UFOs and it doesn't fly here.

Also, what the heck is your standard? The evidence you DON'T HAVE is somehow superior to the evidence we DO have? How does that work?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Someone who comes here for the sole purpose of attacking and insulting us for taking the position that the preponderance of the peer-reviewed evidence is more reliable than the moronic ramblings of online crackpots and discredited quacks and crackpots, they're certainly not interested in nor capable of a rational discussion.

 

[Gnug215]

Rabble. Rabble rabble rabble.

Mod note:

khronikos, for not listening and for insulting people instead, you're now the lucky owner of a temporary ban for 7 days.

Take these few days to think about things. Maybe gather some evidence for an actual case, maybe look at some solid criticism for your own case (try this vid about Duesberg, for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShCZTbHEhk ), but when, if, you come back, make sure you express yourself in a more calm and evidentiary manner, and for THE LOVE OF... create new, separate threads if you want to discuss new, separate issues.

Thank you.

 

[Visaki]

I also find it HILARIOUS that you are arguing with a world renowned scientist with a huge list of accolades who sacrificed his career to provide information as to what he thinks and others as well is a theory that has never been corrected. It is still a theory you know. IT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN!

(The bolding is mine)
Is it only me or do other too really facepalm theirselves every time when they read that? It's like a lithmus test of does this person understand science.

 

[BrainBlow]