Sorry Victor, when I get on a rant I usually make at least one blooper. Alan
On 2014-08-11, at 15:12 PM, Victor Cozzetto wrote: Well said. My posts agree with you 100% Alan, so I think your question was intended for David or Mike? Victor On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Alan Faulkner <[email protected]> wrote: The fact of the matter is that clinical trials have landed us many dud drugs that killed a lot of PPL, because clinical trials can be misleading, easy to manipulate, easy to create the outcome you want by manipulating the data and the trial proceedings. Science is so easy to corrupt that drug companies and the Allopathic medical community even have English Majors working for them, that massage the way the results are spoken. Consequently I have more faith in faith healers than the results of modern clinical trials. They are and have been a scam to sell product right from the beginning. Science has taken on the mantle of religion, as Rupert Sheldrake has called it "Sciencism". Lots of books on the topic of big pharma/allopathic fibbing, but one of the latest is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg I agree that there should be objective inquiry into things medical, but it is so difficult to be objective when the PPL who are out to objectify the results all have a major financial/reputation/ego stake in the outcome. So Victor who would pay for this? You? Alan On 2014-08-10, at 17:16 PM, M.G. Devour wrote: Victor asks David: > Why do you care about clinical trials, the FDA, etc.? David replies: > > We do ourselves a disservice by claiming there is proof where > there is none. Its a stick that our opponents will continually > beat us with. Far better for us to concentrate on the results > of the thousands of lab tests and on the compelling anecdotal > 'evidence'. I'd say that about answers the question... There is a major distinction to be made between lab tests vs. clinical trials vs. anecdotal reports. To make any claims about clinical results BASED ON LAB TESTS is foolish, at best, and far too many such claims are made by folks attempting to "sell" CS, one way or another. What proof we have for clinical results is based on *extensive* anecdotal evidence... literally the experience of many thousands of users and applications over decades. However, that experience isn't systematically documented or presented anywhere I know of... It's basically a word of mouth, over the back fence kind of thing. What is probably right, though, is to say that clinical trials have not and will not happen any time soon. There's just not enough profit to be made from silver that anybody can make in their home to justify the investment of 10's or 100's of millions of dollars (US) for the clinical trials and applications for FDA approval... If you add the institutional resistance due to commercial influence on the regulatory and funding processes, it will be pretty hard to get anything through. I think David's point, that we should keep our claims realistic and limited to what we actually *do* have proof for, would leave us better off in the marketplace of ideas. Be well, Mike D. -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:[email protected]> List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:[email protected]>
