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]> > > > >
