|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Colloidal silver/Archive1
hehehe[edit]
hehehe, Stan Jones as a redlink didn't work anyway, because the guy is blue. Secret Squirrel 09:22, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
What about the Blue Rinse Brigade? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Patent 7,135,195[edit]
Cut from page: "Although this is the popular belief, this is simply not true. There is some evidence to support other wise. Take a look at United States Patent 7,135,195. Simply google this to find the link." -- 97.74.215.148
A patent filing is not evidence of this. 
ListenerXTalkerX 04:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
That's right, patent is not an evidence. Here is a link btw: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7135195&OS=7135195&RS=7135195 However their gel based on this technology has been approved by the FDA, making it the first ever approved cs by fda, although for external use. They do have about 10 peer reviewed articles which are showing the effectiveness in vivo. — Unsigned, by: 180.183.65.163 / talk / contribs 13:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Werewolf[edit]
But would this be an effective treatment for werewolves?--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Given their nonexistence... no. ТyJFBAA 18:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- But a non-effective treatment would seem to be quit appropriate for a non-existent problem.--Weirdstuff (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Why such alt-med stuff is not just harmless fun...[edit]
I just came across an online discussion involving someone who had had botulism. Then another guy popped in to say that you just needed to consume some colloidal silver if you had eaten some tainted food and it would kill off even botulinum. I asked this guy what he based this bombastic assertion on, pointing out that colloidal silver is a well-known woo panacea, and he literally answered "It works for me and everyone I know who uses it. The only people it doesn't work for is government-funded studies packed with AMA shills."
Okay, at least it was an (subjectively) honest, direct answer and its obvious use of the most pedestrian of anecdotal evidence and naked conspiracy theory might warn others off actually trying to self-medicate with colloidal silver against botulism, but still: botulism is an extremely dangerous disease and the idea that some numbnuts are telling people to just use woo or folk remedies to combat it, rather than seeking immediate medical attention is quite frightening. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- You can tell that guy that even if he's right about colloidal silver killing the bacteria, botulism is caused by toxin that's built up over time in food, and so would be unaffected by the death of the bacteria. You can also tell him that botulism is rare (in the US, it affects a fraction of the number struck by lightning), even among people who eat tainted food, so it would take a rather large statistical analysis to tell the difference between colloidal silver doing something or nothing at all. You might use that as a prompt to go over basic statistics, which seems to be lacking here. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I really doubt there is much point in slamming someone with statistics, scientific articles and similar facts when his first response to an enquiry is that silver works for him and the only reason its effects haven't been demonstrated scientifically is because of a conspiracy involving the gubmint, AMA and (probably) Big Pharma (I'm guessing that he imagines that the AMA shills for the latter). I actually asked him whether he and his acquaintances had saved some of the supposedly tainted food for testing to see if it actually contained botulinum or any other toxins or pathogens - though I'm not very hopeful about getting a useful answer. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which is why I suggested pointing out basic facts that clearly conflict with the supposed cure and evidence of efficacy. You can progress from there once he acknowledges the possibility of being wrong. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity: Has this approach actually worked for you before? My point is that if he immediately insists that scientific results are the product of a wide ranging conspiracy involving government, business and the professions, then I suspect that he probably won't be impressed by me highlighting the rarity of botulism in the US based on statistical evidence provided by the same sinister triangle.
- PS. Although I can't confirm this on any more than personal accounts, the original case that sparked the "good advice" (NOT!) to use colloidal silver seems to really have involved botulism, incl. the droopy eyes and a $15,600 medical bill (according to the sufferer's own account), but the circumstances were also rather unique, i.e. deliberately consuming food that was more than just a little suspicious - as in clearly spoiled "vintage" army rations (specifically, an LRP ration
from 1977!). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it's worked for me. The thing is, people with different opinions are people, and people typically have some justification (even if only to themselves) for their opinions. Doublethink can be powerful, but it typically isn't invincible. So if you can determine why someone believes something incorrect, you can present basic, simple information to counter that justification. And I'm not talking about "scientific results" like published papers. As you mentioned, the subscription to a conspiracy theory makes that unconvincing for now. I mean things that a reasonable child could understand easily, since that's harder to maintain cognitive dissonance against. So how does botulism work? Bacteria secrete poison in food, and the poison can make people sick. Since the poison is there, it can make people sick whether or not the bacteria are killed at that point. So even if colloidal silver is an effective antibacterial treatment in that situation, it wouldn't work to prevent botulism. But if silver doesn't work, why hasn't he gotten it? Because it's extremely rare - rarer than getting struck by lightning. So even without any preventative measures, he's not likely to get botulism in his lifetime, and no one he knows is either. The trick is going into the conversation knowing what the truth is. That is, being able to trace every position to first principles, and knowing why each step along the way is what it is, so you can address what the actual misunderstanding is. Countering fractal wrongness takes fractal rightness. Once you find something sufficiently obvious as to be undeniable, you can use that as a starting point to rebuild the person's understanding of the issue. Keep in mind that constructing a correct position is typically more difficult than undermining an incorrect one. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which is why I suggested pointing out basic facts that clearly conflict with the supposed cure and evidence of efficacy. You can progress from there once he acknowledges the possibility of being wrong. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I really doubt there is much point in slamming someone with statistics, scientific articles and similar facts when his first response to an enquiry is that silver works for him and the only reason its effects haven't been demonstrated scientifically is because of a conspiracy involving the gubmint, AMA and (probably) Big Pharma (I'm guessing that he imagines that the AMA shills for the latter). I actually asked him whether he and his acquaintances had saved some of the supposedly tainted food for testing to see if it actually contained botulinum or any other toxins or pathogens - though I'm not very hopeful about getting a useful answer. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)