To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: The Crackpot Index
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2

wcelliott
QUOTE
Just how many of these questions are you going to ignore?


All the stupid ones. Which in your case, from someone who doesn't know the difference between pathogens and toxins, and fails to grasp the concept that *silver is silver* (the Identity Principle), means all of them. (Disregarding the Identity Principle just shows everyone how desperate you've become to defend your position.)

CS cured 55 cases of malaria, 100% of the patients given CS lived, according to sworn testimony before Congress. If you have proof to the contrary, notify Congress, as it's a felony to lie to Congress. People don't generally volunteer to testify before Congress with the intent of lying and committing a felony.

The same CS was used in the clinical trials in Africa that's available from a particular health-food store/"Nutrition Center", right off the shelf. It's 99.999% ultrapure water and 10 parts-per-million silver, in clusters measured to be mostly in the range of 10-50nanometers. (That's one reason I don't recommend it, the Texas HIV-1 study said they found nanoclusters of silver atoms in the range of 1-10nanometers were found to bind to the active-sites of the HIV-1 viral shell. The other reason is that it's more expensive than other brands that have smaller nanoparticles.)

And threatening to put my IP address on the web is as sleazy a tactic as I've ever seen in any forum.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
All the stupid ones.


Ah. So you are relying upon more insults now.

QUOTE
Which in your case, from someone who doesn't know the difference between pathogens and toxins,


According to whom? You just love posting one personal claim after another about me with nothing to back it up. Again, it is not my fault that when you listed those infection that you did not think about the related toxins.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Which in your case, from someone who doesn't know the difference between pathogens and toxins,


According to whom? You just love posting one personal claim after another about me with nothing to back it up. Again, it is not my fault that when you listed those infection that you did not think about the related toxins.

and fails to grasp the concept that *silver is silver*


I can understand your claim, but I reject it due to it being childishly simplistic. Again, if what you claim is true, then oxygen is oxygen and that means you should be able to breathe CO2 or O3.

QUOTE
(the Identity Principle),


Again, it is the principle, or law to be more specific, of identity.

And how odd is it for a person to try to rely upon a philosophical principle when addressing material and medical claims?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
(the Identity Principle),


Again, it is the principle, or law to be more specific, of identity.

And how odd is it for a person to try to rely upon a philosophical principle when addressing material and medical claims?

means all of them. (Disregarding the Identity Principle just shows everyone how desperate you've become to defend your position.)


Again, not so. The Principle or law of Identity is a philosophical one and we are talking about material and medical facts. Relying upon a philosophical tautology is a cop-out.

QUOTE
CS cured 55 cases of malaria, 100% of the patients given CS lived, according to sworn testimony before Congress.


Again, source? Posting that lie over and over does not make it fact.

Do you have a legitimate source or do I get sent to another alternative medical site that also deny HIV/AIDS?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
CS cured 55 cases of malaria, 100% of the patients given CS lived, according to sworn testimony before Congress.


Again, source? Posting that lie over and over does not make it fact.

Do you have a legitimate source or do I get sent to another alternative medical site that also deny HIV/AIDS?

If you have proof to the contrary, notify Congress, as it's a felony to lie to Congress.


Back to that again? Again, your claims are your responsibility to back up. If you cannot, then your claims are simply hollow.

QUOTE
People don't generally volunteer to testify before Congress with the intent of lying and committing a felony.


Again, source? And you are still ignoring that the good doctor never stated that CS cures anything. That is your spin and misrepresentation.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
People don't generally volunteer to testify before Congress with the intent of lying and committing a felony.


Again, source? And you are still ignoring that the good doctor never stated that CS cures anything. That is your spin and misrepresentation.

The same CS was used in the clinical trials in Africa that's available from a particular health-food store/"Nutrition Center", right off the shelf.


And again, source? The last time, you used a forum form a podcast for such a claim.

QUOTE
And threatening to put my IP address on the web is as sleazy a tactic as I've ever seen in any forum.


Wow. Such a lie. When did I threaten to put your IP address on the web?

You just keep digging deeper holes. I asked if you wanted me to post a link to the forum you ignorantly posted on that listed the first three octets of your IP address.

So since you seem not to be that knowledgeable of what I speak, let me explain it to you.

You posted on the forum and both times you did so, the forum posted part of your information. Once was your Road Runner sub-network which I am assuming is your home ISP. The other was the first three octets of what we now know to be your work IP address.

This means that the forum displays “123.456.789.” leaving the last octet blank.

Let me know if you want me to actually post the IP listed.

Now, using rather common knowledge, I looked up that IP address since normally forums that list partial information use ISP information. The entire IP address range based upon that partial IP address, meaning the last octet/number from 2 to 255, resolve to only one company.

Being sleazy would be contacting your job and telling them of your actions while on company time and that your negative actions have been linked to them.

Being sleazy would have been contacting you and threatening to release that information or contacting your company.

The fact that you now have egg on your face due to your ignorance of the technology of the web in general and of the forum you visited specifically is the only reason you now sink lower and castigate me for bringing this fact of your ignorance to light.

It appears your formal education has failed you miserably while my autodidactic nature and knowledge has served me rather well.

So, again, I did not threaten you. I specifically asked you if you wanted me to list the site that has your IP address listed publically.

It appears that all you now have is deception, child-like reasoning, logical fallacies and personal insults.

I am shocked how such a self-professed gifted person could be so petulant, bellicose and irrational.

Do you have anything else?
wcelliott
The first time I took "Logic", it was as a freshman in college, in their philosophy department. Logic is a subset of philosophy, and your laughable assertion that silver *isn't* silver is denial of the first theorem of logic - The Identity Principle.

The second time I took Logic, it was in the Computer Science department, as part of a Digital Logic class.

Your denial of the validity of the statement "Silver is silver" is denial of logic, itself. It's therefore pointless to argue with someone who denies the first principle of logic.

I'm just curious, in what way is silver *not* silver?
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
The first time I took "Logic", it was as a freshman in college, in their philosophy department. Logic is a subset of philosophy, and your laughable assertion that silver *isn't* silver is denial of the first theorem of logic - The Identity Principle.


Why do you keep calling it by the wrong name? Are you that egotistical? It is the principle or law of identity.

And again, trying to bring up a philosophical dodge in a discussion about material and medical fact is being intellectually dishonest.

If, however, you actually think that the world is that simplistic and actually buy into A is A for everything including anything on the periodic table, then you must also think that oxygen is oxygen and one can breathe CO2 and O3 since oxygen is oxygen.

QUOTE
The second time I took Logic, it was in the Computer Science department, as part of a Digital Logic class.


And again, irrelevant to the argument regarding material and medical facts.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The second time I took Logic, it was in the Computer Science department, as part of a Digital Logic class.


And again, irrelevant to the argument regarding material and medical facts.

Your denial of the validity of the statement "Silver is silver" is denial of logic, itself.


No, it is a denial of your simplistic platitude. Again, if your simplistic platitude is fact, then you must believe that you can breathe CO2 and O3 since oxygen is oxygen.

QUOTE
It's therefore pointless to argue with someone who denies the first principle of logic.


In other words, you have backed yourself into another corner, have been embarrassed again, and all of your bloviating regarding your intellect and formal education amounts to naught.

Use whatever cop-out you need to cower away again. No real surprise by now.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It's therefore pointless to argue with someone who denies the first principle of logic.


In other words, you have backed yourself into another corner, have been embarrassed again, and all of your bloviating regarding your intellect and formal education amounts to naught.

Use whatever cop-out you need to cower away again. No real surprise by now.

I'm just curious, in what way is silver *not* silver?


Sorry, you need to address the litany of questions regarding your unsubstantiated claims rather than to try again to go off on more tangents.

Even when entertained, confronted and shown to be nonsensical, you simple move onto more and more tangents.

But aren't you the highly educated one and formally so? So tell me, if silver is just silver then you must believe that oxygen is just oxygen. Why then is it considered that breathing CO2 or O3 is a bad thing medically?

Is that not a violation of the principle of logic you keep misrepresenting and hiding behind?

So again, you have failed to post a legitimate source for your claim that the good doctor stated that CS cured the infections you mentioned.

You continue to ignore the fact that you have used websites that are HIV/AIDS deniers rather than legitimate medical sources.

You continue to make grand claims based upon your child-like logic that if I have never disagree with another on this forum that this means that account is mine.

Lastly, you keep claiming I have made statements or taken action you cannot backup with examples or cite where I stated such a thing.



wcelliott
QUOTE
You continue to make grand claims based upon your child-like logic that if I have never disagree with another on this forum that this means that account is mine.


OK, let's ask TheDoc - Are you going to claim that GS is right when he says that silver isn't silver?

Grumpy - Is silver silver? Do you believe that this equates with saying that oxygen is the same thing as ozone or carbon dioxide?

RealityCheck - What do you think? I said "Silver is silver", and GeneSplicer says I'm wrong.

Is there anybody here besides GeneSplicer who thinks that "Silver is silver" is an incorrect statement?
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
OK, let's ask TheDoc - Are you going to claim that GS is right when he says that silver isn't silver?

Grumpy - Is silver silver? Do you believe that this equates with saying that oxygen is the same thing as ozone or carbon dioxide?

RealityCheck - What do you think? I said "Silver is silver", and GeneSplicer says I'm wrong.


Can’t argue your own points or for your own claims?

Why are you concentrating on just this tangent rather than address the other facts regarding your claims like your questionable sources?

QUOTE
Is there anybody here besides GeneSplicer who thinks that "Silver is silver" is an incorrect statement?


Again, you continue to misrepresent what I have stated by not reflecting context.

You are claiming that all forms of silver are the same so if any medical treatment includes silver, as in the bandaged used to prevent or treat MRSA infection, then that is material support for your claims that colloidal silver will also cure MRSA.

Are you totally incapable of arguing rationally and honestly?

And you forgot a few people and the fact that according to your earlier claims, that TheDoc at least is another account I post under.

And what about bm1957, MjolnirPants and others? No desire to hear what they think about the topic? I wonder why?

So is everyone supposed to believe that you are asking me via an account you accused me of using my opinion of your simplistic platitude or is it more to the point that your earlier claims of a sock puppet account was one you made out of desperation and frustration?

I’ve stated it before and you keep providing material support for it. You claim to be an intelligent and rational person but your posts do not reflect such a person.

What about your formal education? Wouldn't a person involved in SDI (chemical lasers) and the biotech industry need to know, even at a base level, chemistry?

And again, where is the site supporting your claim that the good doctor stated that CS cures anything?

Where is the posts I made that backs up your claim of what I have stated or the action you claim I have made?
wcelliott
As I already posted:

"ABL's first three products that we manufactured were dietary supplements. These products have actual silver concentrations of 10 parts per million ("ppm"), 14 ppm and 22 ppm and are sold through a number of different outlets. For example, ASAP 10 (the 10 ppm product) is being sold through General Nutrition Center stores throughout the country under the name Silver Biotics. This 10 ppm of silver particles in purified water is colorless, tasteless, odorless and is non-toxic. Based on our knowledge of the engineering of the metallic silver particles, we estimate the actual shelf life of our products to be in excess of 10 years.

As demand for our products grew, we began distributing ASAP 10 worldwide.
...
In 2001, twelve bottles of our 10 ppm ASAP product fell into the hands of a medical Doctor in Rwanda, Dr. Ewabuhihl Ezechias. One day I received a frantic telephone call from Dr. Ezechias' office that was in Rwanda caring for a group of very young children who were in the last stages of malaria about to die. Dr. Ezechias was looking for instructions on how to administer our ASAP 10 product to these desperately ill children. I suggested to the Doctor that he measure out a teaspoon or two to each of the children, two or three times a day and that he repeat the process until the children hopefully showed some improvement. He responded abruptly that there was no time for measuring anything - the situation was far too grave for "such niceties." All of these children had temperatures around 105 degrees, had not improved with conventional treatments and were all about to die. He asked me if he could simply put the water into their bottles. Knowing of its totally non-toxic properties and sensing his desperation, I assured him that it would not hurt the children.

Days later, Dr. Ezechias contacted and told me that he had put the ASAP 10 ppm water directly into the drinking water bottles of 11 of these children. All 11 of the young children who received the ASAP 10 ppm got better. A week later, the 11 left his clinic alive and healthy. Sadly, there were other children who did not receive the ASAP treatment. Those children died in spite of receiving all the conventional treatments which Dr. Ezechias provided them."

That's a clinical trial, with a control group. 100% success rate at curing malaria.

"THE TECHNOLOGY

ABL manufactures its water-based products by controlling and delivering a few thousand Volts AC through highly purified silver electrodes in contact with the surface of high purity water. The silver in the electrodes is slowly dispersed into the water as metallic silver nano-sized particles. "

Metalic silver nanoparticles and pure water. No third ingredient.

Since you have a problem using Google:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...silver+hydrosol

From one of the sites that comes up:

"About Colloidal Silver
...Products that are generally available and currently being marketed as colloidal silver fall primarily into the following categories: actual colloidal silver & nano silver, ionic silver and mild silver protein. We do not sell mild silver protein products, silver compounds, silver salts or chemical based dispersions. "

From another:

"BrandNameDeleted is 0.9999 pure silver in colloidal form, a true silver colloid...
Contains only pure water and pure silver. "

From another:

"30 Sprays contain: Silver (10ppm) 50mcg" (50 micrograms - recommended daily dose)
"Other ingredients: Ultra-pure water only.
Intended for ingestion..."
"The EPA oral Reference Dose (RfD), applied to 10ppm silver may be the most authoritative guide for safety. The RfD for a 154 pound adult = 210 sprays/day for 70 years of continuous ingestion."

210 sprays is 7x the recommended daily dose, so the actual RfD would be 30 sprays per day for 490 years.

"SILVER KILLS VIRUSES, STUDY FINDS
Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

In a groundbreaking study, the Journal of Nanotechnology has published a study that found silver nanoparticles kills HIV-1 and is likely to kill virtually any other virus. The study, which was conducted by the University of Texas and Mexico University, is the first medical study to ever explore the benefits of silver nanoparticles, according to Physorg.

During the study, researchers used three different methods of limiting the size of the silver nanoparticles by using capping agents. The capping agents were foamy carbon, poly (PVP), and bovine serum albumin (BSA). The particles ranged in size from 1 to 10 nanometers depending on the method of capping. After incubating the HIV-1 virus at 37 C, the silver particles killed 100% of the virus within 3 hours for all three methods. The scientists believe that the silver particles bonded through glycoprotein knobs on the virus with spacing of about 22 nanometers in length.

While further research is needed, researchers are optimistic that nanological silver may be the silver bullet to kill viruses. The researchers in the study said that they had already begin experiments using silver nanoparticles to kill what is known as the super bug (Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus). Already used as a topical antibiotic in the medical industry, silver may now come under consideration as an alternative to drugs when it comes to fighting previously untreatable viruses such as the Tamiflu resistant avian flu."

From another:

"in the case of Noble Metal nanoparticles,
the electromagnetic, optical and catalytic properties
are, in fact, highly influenced by size. It is clear in
nanotechnology that the smaller the molecule the
more energetic it is and the more easily it interacts
on the cellular level.
WHY STUDY SILVER?
Silver has especially been of interest to researchers.
A general sentiment, expressed in many reports on
silver’s potential uses in medicine, is that silver has
two key advantages. First, silver functions as a
broad-spectrum antimicrobial that has little or no
association with drug resistance. Secondly, silver
has been in frequent use in modern medicine for
decades, in a wide array of applications including
topical, intravenous, and in medical equipment,
including surgical devices and catheters.
The findings in studies on nanosilver thus far
have been very promising, showing that nanosilver
is effective against a wide range of microbes,
including bacteria, fungi and viruses,
and it
appears that nanoparticles of silver do act more
efficiently, and express silver’s antimicrobial and
healing properties more strongly, than silver applications
that have been used in the past.

SILVER AS AN ANTIMICROBIAL
Nanosilver’s antibacterial properties have been
observed in a number of clinical studies. While the
mechanisms of the antibacterial properties are not
yet fully understood, it appears that silver ions
cause a detachment of the cytoplasm membrane
from the bacterial cell wall, causing protein inactivation
and loss of ability for DNA replication.

In a 1999 clinical study, a nanocrystalline silver
topical cream was used to treat burn victims.
The study confirmed that the nanosilver provided
broad-spectrum protection against fungus.
This
minimized the potential of fungal infection,
thereby reducing secondary infections and complications
that delay wound healing.
The Department of Chemical Engineering at the
University of Texas, Austin, has been extensively
involved in research looking at nanoparticle interaction
with biomolecules and microorganisms, and
more specifically, how metal nanoparticles interact
with viruses. In a study of nanosilver’s interaction
with the HIV-1 virus, the results were very encouraging:
Silver appears to undergo a size-dependent
reaction where nanoparticles exclusively below 10
nanometers attached to the virus. The research
suggests that the silver nanoparticles interact with
the HIV-1 virus via preferential binding to the gp120
glycoprotein knobs, inhibiting the ability of the virus
to bind to a host cell, hence inhibiting its ability to
wreak havoc on your immune system.

PARTICLE SIZE IS THE KEY
Particle size is so extremely
important when it comes to
silver preparations. As silver
particles get smaller, the
positive charge increases.
The positive charge actually
helps the silver particles seek
out the offending microbes.
The positive charge also causes particles to repel
one another, meaning there is a uniform dispersion
in the solution. Smaller particles offer more overall
surface area, and more particle saturation to interact
with offending microbes and to heal irritated
tissues. Finally, small particle size allows maximal
results with minimal silver. Many silver products
boast a high ppm (parts per million), but it is not
necessarily an accurate indicator of a good product.
Higher silver concentration can mean a higher
risk of toxicity, and it is not a reflection of the dispersion,
saturation, surface area or charge, which
are key elements for effectiveness.
This knowledge has allowed researchers to create
safer, better silver medical products, such as
stents, catheters, and bandages, as well as oral and
topical preparations, with more healing potential
than ever.
As we continue to hear more about the
problems arising from drug interactions and antibiotic-
resistant strains, silver’s
healing potential as a pure
and simple element looks
more and more appealing.


UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL
Studies continue to give us
insight into the role that
nanosilver may play in the future of health and medical
care. While silver has been used for centuries as
an antimicrobial, researchers are really only beginning
to unlock the healing potential of this metal,
because they finally have the technology to study it at
the nanoscale. They are learning the mechanisms by
which it fights infectious microbes, and it appears
that it is, as suspected, enhanced by smaller,
nanoscale particle size. While there is still an
immense amount of study to be done on nanosilver’s
healing potential, the understanding of the importance
of particle size has been a huge boost."

From another site:

"TRUE COLLOIDAL SILVER
Are you tired of sorting through the hype and promotion of all the self proclaimed experts pitching their colloidal silver products on the internet? So are we. First they tell you that colloidal silver has been used effectively for over one hundred years and then in the same breath they tell you that only their latest high tech, high dollar concoction works. Ridiculous! Do they really think the buying public can not see through this transparent deceptiveness? Some unscrupulous marketers even go so far as to present themselves as unbiased scientists with graphs and charts and numbers all meant to mislead people into believing their competitors products are low quality. These deceitful schemes are merely intended to drive consumers to buy products that the "unbiased scientists" profit from. We believe this practice to be unethical to say the least. Here at BrandNameDeleted we will not waste your time filling your head with promotional rubbish. No mega ppm's, no special colors, no high voltage magic potions. We make and market our colloidal silver the old fashioned way, safe, effective, and affordable.
...
Some Colloidal Silver marketers, in an attempt to make their product appear "special" or "superior", would lead you to believe that an ion is not a particle. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry defines an ion as "An atomic or molecular particle having a net electric charge" The IUPAC is the world authority in chemical terminology and this definition is applicable to ALL fields of science. The IUPAC further states that Colloid components include ionic particles and even refers to the "Colloidal Ion". Any publication that would lead you to believe that an ion can not be part of a true colloid is written by an author who is either uninformed or attempting to deceive the reader. Ionic Colloidal Silver is True Colloidal Silver."

>>
Actually, as I said before, the most-accurate name for the product is "nanosilver hydrosol", but the name "colloidal silver" is what it used to be called when it was in-use as an FDA-Approved Drug, so the name kinda stuck.

I'm still interested in hearing whether all of your friends who've never disagreed with you, ever, support your assertion that "Silver is silver" is an inaccurate statement. I'd *love* to hear from everyone reading this post whether they feel that "silver is silver" or not.

Anybody?
bm1957
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 18 2008, 01:06 AM)
I'm just curious, in what way is silver *not* silver?

How about when it's oxidised? Then it's black, not silver.

See how tautologies aren't always reliable?
NEONOM
toilet,

you should by now be realising that physorg is the back to front land of the topsy turvey antimatter world where ubavonblackhole has turned evrything inside out. Here, silver is not silver moderators do not moderate the nice guys are angry pretentious fucktards and the mafia are the good guys. oh and if you had any sense youd bog off.

wink.gif
Bloy
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 18 2008, 04:38 AM)
....and the mafia are the good guys.

I'm sorry...
There are many "good guys" here in this forum. Some even have links to the so-called "mafia". You, neonom, although a self-professed member of the mafia are not one of them (the good guys). However, you could easily convince me you were one of "The Good Fellows". wack wack wack...hehehe..
NEONOM
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 18 2008, 11:24 AM)
I'm sorry...
There are many "good guys" here in this forum. Some even have links to the so-called "mafia". You, neonom, although a self-professed member of the mafia are not one of them (the good guys). However, you could easily convince me you were one of "The Good Fellows". wack wack wack...hehehe..

You see, you have to consider what kind o person would spend nearly 3 years o their lives just spewing endless drivel like the pseudomoderator bloy has. Whats he actually doing here? Thats quite some effort o dedication to continue such a spewing for such a long time dont you think? And then suddenly start leaping to the defence o RseCrack cos hes a fellow mod class o 2005.

Ah and there it is. Another confession.
QUOTE
There are many "good guys" here in this forum. Some even have links to the so-called "mafia".
3 years, -42, nothing but endless drivel and misinformation, and for bloy this adds up to "there are many good guys here".

Perhaps you could list all those good guys that have links to the so-called mafia? Theres a good fefefellowackowackowacko. wink.gif hehehe
Bloy
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 18 2008, 06:34 AM)
Perhaps you could list all those good guys that have links to the so-called mafia?

oh boy... now he wants me to do research for him....
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
As I already posted:


Link? You still seems to have a problem posting them.

And what is this supposed to address? Is this more add information from a CS cite?

QUOTE
Days later, Dr. Ezechias contacted and told me that


Again, source? You keep posting this information and when you bother to actually source it, the source is a CS sales site or a forum for a podcast.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Days later, Dr. Ezechias contacted and told me that


Again, source? You keep posting this information and when you bother to actually source it, the source is a CS sales site or a forum for a podcast.

Since you have a problem using Google:


You still don’t get it, do you. For a formally educated person, you seem not to be able to grasp the fact that it falls upon you to back up your claims. It is not my job to go looking for it.

QUOTE
From one of the sites that comes up:


You mean Cs sales sites. Yes, I have seen them, but you forget that there are plenty of NSH sales sites that go to great length to show and claim how what they produce and sell is not CS.

So what makes the CS sales sites you select right and the others wrong?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
From one of the sites that comes up:


You mean Cs sales sites. Yes, I have seen them, but you forget that there are plenty of NSH sales sites that go to great length to show and claim how what they produce and sell is not CS.

So what makes the CS sales sites you select right and the others wrong?

Actually, as I said before, the most-accurate name for the product is "nanosilver hydrosol", but the name "colloidal silver" is what it used to be called when it was in-use as an FDA-Approved Drug, so the name kinda stuck.


And repeating that lie does not make it fact. NSH is not CS unless of course we rely upon your simplistic platitude.

And again, where is the link that NSH is an FDA approved drug?

QUOTE
I'm still interested in hearing whether all of your friends who've never disagreed with you, ever, support your assertion that "Silver is silver" is an inaccurate statement.


So are you still on aobut me having 6 or more sock puppet accounts or is this a new tangent due to your bruised ego and frustration?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I'm still interested in hearing whether all of your friends who've never disagreed with you, ever, support your assertion that "Silver is silver" is an inaccurate statement.


So are you still on aobut me having 6 or more sock puppet accounts or is this a new tangent due to your bruised ego and frustration?

I'd *love* to hear from everyone reading this post whether they feel that "silver is silver" or not.


And again, you omit the context. You keep on trying to reduce subject matters to a simplistic view that does not reflect the original statement or topic.

You claim that when it comes to the use of silver in medical applications that all silver is exactly alike so this means that if a silver nanoparticle is used in any application that it is support for your claims that CS cures whatever you claim it does.

QUOTE
Anybody?


Why would anyone need to back up my arguments? It is becasue you cannot back up yours with fact? Or is it because you cannot shut me up?

Odd how a person claiming to have the facts to back up their claims is now making a public appeal.

How about those links to the sources?

Still waiting for you to show where the good doctor you cited earlier claimed that CS cures anything.
NEONOM
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 18 2008, 12:58 PM)
oh boy... now he wants me to do research for him....

You mean back up your claims like a scientist should? Yes please. I'll just wait here. It shouldnt take you too long, well depending on how long the list is I guess. smile.gif

Bloy
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 18 2008, 07:07 AM)
You mean back up your claims like a scientist should? Yes please. I'll just wait here. It shouldnt take you too long, well depending on how long the list is I guess.  smile.gif

Ah! At least you don't consider yourself a scientist....otherwise you would have said..."we scientists". But all that aside, Thank you for waiting for me....walking backwards might take some time.
TheDoc
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
It's all right there in the record.


Yeah, and I used that record to point how your lies, you idiot.

QUOTE
You never posted anything on the Stonehenge thread after opening it


Yes, I did, you liar.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You never posted anything on the Stonehenge thread after opening it


Yes, I did, you liar.

(unless it was under the screenname of MjolrPants)


Well, aincha jes one smart cookie! rolleyes.gif

Put up or shut up, you liar. Show some of your priceless "evidence" that implicates me as MjolnirPants' main persona.

QUOTE
you started posting Negs on me AFTER I started posting Negs on GeneSplicer for dishonest "debating" tactcs.


Yes, because I believe you to be a dishonest idiot. GeneSplicer, MjolnirPants and even I have been able to back up that assertion.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
you started posting Negs on me AFTER I started posting Negs on GeneSplicer for dishonest "debating" tactcs.


Yes, because I believe you to be a dishonest idiot. GeneSplicer, MjolnirPants and even I have been able to back up that assertion.

And you're an idiot, a liar, and a stalker.


Really? laugh.gif Okay, show me some evidence of me being a liar. Show me the evidence where I've stalked you. Do it right here, right now. I bet you won't. I bet you can't.

QUOTE
OK, let's ask TheDoc - Are you going to claim that GS is right when he says that silver isn't silver?


And yet more evidence of your dishonest behavior. He never claimed "silver isn't silver".

I'm still waiting for that proof I'm a sockpuppet of GeneSplicer. And while you're at it, why don't you come up with some proof MjolnirPants is my sockpuppet, too? biggrin.gif
wcelliott
QUOTE
As I already posted:


At: http://healthyagain.biz/testimony.htm

Which makes CS, sells CS, and has described it:

"THE TECHNOLOGY

ABL manufactures its water-based products by controlling and delivering a few thousand Volts AC through highly purified silver electrodes in contact with the surface of high purity water. The silver in the electrodes is slowly dispersed into the water as metallic silver nano-sized particles. "

You'd claimed that CS is different from Nanosilver Hydrosol, and I'd pointed out that it's the same thing - nanoparticles of silver in ultrapure water.

Silver is silver.

Silver nanparticles are silver nanoparticles.

Ultrapure Water is ultrapure water.

There are only two components in CS, as I'd said before, and you'd contested before (showing that you really are clueless), so I did the Google for you and posted quotes from several CS sites that came up from a Google search of "nanosilver hydrosol" that supported my position that CS and Nanosilver Hydrosol are, in fact, the same thing. "Nanosilver hydrosol" hasn't been declared "quackery" by the FDA, so the people who sell it avoid using the term "colloidal silver", but they're the same thing. Silver nanoparticles in pure water. Period. No third component, no "magic ingredient", no "secret sauce".

TheDoc, you should realize that most of my comments were addressed towards GeneSplicer, except for those which I prefaced with "TheDoc".

And I do recognize that I was wrong when I said you'd only posted the one original post in the Stonehenge thread and left the thread. You didn't leave the thread, you merely didn't participate in the discussion. But as long as you're reading this and asserting that MjPants refuted all my arguments with such sound logic, are you willing to go on-record here as saying that you think gluing together a firebox with pitch would be a good idea? Because MjPants never seemed to understand why that wouldn't be a good idea.

And, while you're at it (TheDoc), I'd love to hear whether you believe that "silver is silver" is false, as GeneSplicer continues to argue?
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelltiot+)
You'd claimed that CS is different from Nanosilver Hydrosol, and I'd pointed out that it's the same thing - nanoparticles of silver in ultrapure water.


And again you post another lie. I never made such a claim. You simply keep misrepresenting what I have stated in favor of your simplistic and misleading claims.

Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over is not proof of that claim.

And again, you have cited claims from CS and similar sales sites while ignoring other sites that declaire that they NSH they sell is not CS.

I guess all of those people are wrong, including any of them that have acquired patents for what they sell.

QUOTE
Silver is silver.


Again, according to your simplistic platitude, oxygen is oxygen. I guess medical science is wrong that breathing O3 is damaging.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Silver is silver.


Again, according to your simplistic platitude, oxygen is oxygen. I guess medical science is wrong that breathing O3 is damaging.

There are only two components in CS, as I'd said before, and you'd contested before (showing that you really are clueless),


And you miss the entire point. You are trying to claim that nano particles of silver including silver nanocrystals are the same as silver.

If that is true and silver is just silver, then I should be able to grind up a silver coin, put it on a bandage and use it to cure MRSA.

If silver is just silver, then that should work, correct Elliot?

QUOTE
so I did the Google for you and posted quotes from several CS sites that came up from a Google search of "nanosilver hydrosol" that supported my position that CS and Nanosilver Hydrosol are, in fact, the same thing. "Nanosilver hydrosol" hasn't been declared "quackery" by the FDA, so the people who sell it avoid using the term "colloidal silver", but they're the same thing.


Yes, again CS sales sites that claim many things but still have to display the disclaimer that Cs does not treat or cure anything.

And again, you are claiming that anything silver used in medical applications is the same as CS. And your source for this claim are the CS sales sites that state that their product are not used to treat or cure anything.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
so I did the Google for you and posted quotes from several CS sites that came up from a Google search of "nanosilver hydrosol" that supported my position that CS and Nanosilver Hydrosol are, in fact, the same thing. "Nanosilver hydrosol" hasn't been declared "quackery" by the FDA, so the people who sell it avoid using the term "colloidal silver", but they're the same thing.


Yes, again CS sales sites that claim many things but still have to display the disclaimer that Cs does not treat or cure anything.

And again, you are claiming that anything silver used in medical applications is the same as CS. And your source for this claim are the CS sales sites that state that their product are not used to treat or cure anything.

TheDoc, you should realize that most of my comments were addressed towards GeneSplicer, except for those which I prefaced with "TheDoc".


That appears to be in conflict with your claim that I am actually posting as TheDoc and evidently a great number of others since I do not disagree with them.

And again, your claim that CS is the same as nano silver and silver nanocrystals is backed up by nothing other than claims from CS sales cites that have to declare that what they sell does not treat anything.

And again, where does the good doctor you quoted earlier state that CS cures anything?

Odd how you cannot find that fact in the story you bragged about earlier.

QUOTE
And, while you're at it (TheDoc), I'd love to hear whether you believe that "silver is silver" is false, as GeneSplicer continues to argue?


And you continue to lie about what I have stated.
wcelliott
QUOTE
And you miss the entire point. You are trying to claim that nano particles of silver including silver nanocrystals are the same as silver.

If that is true and silver is just silver, then I should be able to grind up a silver coin, put it on a bandage and use it to cure MRSA.

If silver is just silver, then that should work, correct Elliot?


Grinding up silver to a powder is one way they used to make "colloidal silver" back when doctors prescribed it to treat/prevent infections. The problem with this approach to making small particles of silver is that you can't physically mill them small enough to interact with viruses, but apparently particles break apart on their own, as shown by the Johnson&Johnson and Bristol-Myers Squib product sites, where they've simply plated silver onto nylon (sheets and fabrics), and let the silver particles flake off into the wounds' exudate (which is mostly water, anyway).

Since MRSA is bacterial (not a toxin, BTW), larger particles like those that flake off the FDA-Approved nylon products are apparently effective against MRSA. So, it probably would work, as it did back early in the prior century when it was prescribed by doctors (before penicillin). But it's the smaller particles that work against viruses, according to the HIV-1 Research:

http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6

"Abstract
The interaction of nanoparticles with biomolecules and microorganisms is an expanding field of research. Within this field, an area that has been largely unexplored is the interaction of metal nanoparticles with viruses. In this work, we demonstrate that silver nanoparticles undergo a size-dependent interaction with HIV-1, with nanoparticles exclusively in the range of 1–10 nm attached to the virus. The regular spatial arrangement of the attached nanoparticles, the center-to-center distance between nanoparticles, and the fact that the exposed sulfur-bearing residues of the glycoprotein knobs would be attractive sites for nanoparticle interaction suggest that silver nanoparticles interact with the HIV-1 virus via preferential binding to the gp120 glycoprotein knobs. Due to this interaction, silver nanoparticles inhibit the virus from binding to host cells, as demonstrated in vitro."

Silver is a metal, so it normally has a crystalline structure, but in small particles of the 1 - 10nanometer scale, you really can't assert that it's still in a "crystalline" form (unless you've never had quantum mechanics).

To get particles that small, you need to go the electrolytic method, as described in the prior posts. High voltages, pure silver, and pure water, and you end up with nanosilver hydrosol/Colloidal Silver, which will indeed cure MRSA. And malaria, and anthrax, and SARS, and colds, and probably Hepatitis C, Ebola, and Job's Syndrome, too, but we won't know for certain until we do the research and try it.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
Since MRSA is bacterial (not a toxin, BTW),


I never claimed it was.

QUOTE
larger particles like those that flake off the FDA-Approved nylon products are apparently effective against MRSA. So, it probably would work, as it did back early in the prior century when it was prescribed by doctors (before penicillin). But it's the smaller particles that work against viruses, according to the HIV-1 Research:


Again, you misrepresent legitimate research. Invitro does not mean it will work in the human body

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
larger particles like those that flake off the FDA-Approved nylon products are apparently effective against MRSA. So, it probably would work, as it did back early in the prior century when it was prescribed by doctors (before penicillin). But it's the smaller particles that work against viruses, according to the HIV-1 Research:


Again, you misrepresent legitimate research. Invitro does not mean it will work in the human body

Silver is a metal, so it normally has a crystalline structure, but in small particles of the 1 - 10nanometer scale, you really can't assert that it's still in a "crystalline" form (unless you've never had quantum mechanics).


But silver is silver according to you and you have cited products that are using silver nanocrystals as proof the CS works.

So which is it? Are your contradictions right or are the manufactures of the FDA approved bandages right. You know, the ones you claimed proved the CS worked as a cure?

QUOTE
To get particles that small, you need to go the electrolytic method, as described in the prior posts. High voltages, pure silver, and pure water, and you end up with nanosilver hydrosol/Colloidal Silver, which will indeed cure MRSA. And malaria, and anthrax, and SARS, and colds, and probably Hepatitis C, Ebola, and Job's Syndrome, too, but we won't know for certain until we do the research and try it.


Again, according to what research? You never posted anything but claim from CS sales sites and questionable sites like those who deny HIV/AIDS.

And to correct you, there is no way that colloidal silver, or any silver product, can cure Job’s syndrome, an immunodeficiency disorder.

http://www.emedicine.com/derm/TOPIC845.HTM

In the past, you have made patently false claims such as that there is no cure for malaria except colloidal silver. That is simply untrue. Also untrue is your claim that Parvo in incurable except for the use of colloidal silver.

Now you are claiming that CS can cure an ever growing list of infections and diseases with nothing to back it up other than your simplistic platitude that silver is silver (except evidently now when it is not) and your misrepresentation of legitimate research.

And again, I still do not see any source to back up your claim that the doctor you cited earlier claimed that CS cures anything.

You also seem to be unable to post the article unless it comes from a questionable site like the HIV/AIDS denial site you used.
excaza
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 15 2008, 10:55 PM)
Have either of you ever disagreed on any topic?  It should be easy to disprove it, just cite where you two had an argument.  Post a link.

Why the fu*k would it matter?

I have yet to disagree with TheDoc or Genesplicer, does that mean I'm the same person?

Your "logic" is retarded.
excaza
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 17 2008, 03:36 PM)
CS cured 55 cases of malaria, 100% of the patients given CS lived, according to sworn testimony before Congress.  If you have proof to the contrary, notify Congress, as it's a felony to lie to Congress.  People don't generally volunteer to testify before Congress with the intent of lying and committing a felony.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. That was testified before Congress too!

QUOTE
And threatening to put my IP address on the web is as sleazy a tactic as I've ever seen in any forum.

You put it on there yourself, numbnuts.
wcelliott
Silver *is* silver, but chemists sometimes have taken Quantum Mechanics and some chemists havent't. A chemist that hasn't taken QM might well make the mistaken statement that the nanoparticles of silver they create are "nanocrystalline silver". They'd be mistaken, but after all, even FDA-Approved products' sites are clearly engaged in "puffery", claiming that their product delivers more silver to the wound site than their competitors, etc.

The actual field that studies small clusters of atoms is called "Quantum Dots". That's a relatively new realm of physics, so it isn't that surprising that someone might make an honestly mistaken claim.

I'm not at all certain that anyone knows exactly how it works, but there's a big difference between something not having an explanation and something that doesn't work.

I'm aware that Job's Syndrome is an immune-deficiency disease, but the symptoms are associated with being more susceptible to fungal, bacterial, and viral infections. From the FDA-Approved products' websites, their silver "ions" kill all relevant pathogens, including fungi and viruses. It wouldn't cure Job's Syndrome, but it would effectively *treat* Job's Syndrome. My bad.

The lack of anyone disagreeing with GeneSplicer, ever, is at least *consistent* with him having sockpuppets.

I'm still waiting for TheDoc to tell me how logical MjPants' suggestion for holding a firebox assembly together with pitch is. Anybody else here see any problem with using pitch to glue a firebox together? Please speak up. Otherwise, I've got to assume that everyone here is a complete idiot, and I'm totally wasting my time.
NEONOM
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 20 2008, 12:26 AM)
Please speak up. Otherwise, I've got to assume that everyone here is a complete idiot, and I'm totally wasting my time.

Its taken 16 months for you to realize that? Holy fukwit, are you dumb. sad.gif
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
Silver *is* silver, but chemists sometimes have taken Quantum Mechanics and some chemists havent't. A chemist that hasn't taken QM might well make the mistaken statement that the nanoparticles of silver they create are "nanocrystalline silver". They'd be mistaken, but after all, even FDA-Approved products' sites are clearly engaged in "puffery", claiming that their product delivers more silver to the wound site than their competitors, etc.


LOL. So now, you are trying to claim that the people who created and manufacture the bandages that you cite over and over are bright enough to create the product and get FDA approval, but are simply not educated enough and mistakenly use the wrong terminology? Too funny.

QUOTE
The actual field that studies small clusters of atoms is called "Quantum Dots". That's a relatively new realm of physics, so it isn't that surprising that someone might make an honestly mistaken claim.


According to you. So tell me. Your expertise now covers QM and related?
I'm not at all certain that anyone knows exactly how it works, but there's a big difference between something not having an explanation and something that doesn't work.

And that means actually nothing, other than you don’t know.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The actual field that studies small clusters of atoms is called "Quantum Dots". That's a relatively new realm of physics, so it isn't that surprising that someone might make an honestly mistaken claim.


According to you. So tell me. Your expertise now covers QM and related?
I'm not at all certain that anyone knows exactly how it works, but there's a big difference between something not having an explanation and something that doesn't work.

And that means actually nothing, other than you don’t know.

I'm aware that Job's Syndrome is an immune-deficiency disease, but the symptoms are associated with being more susceptible to fungal, bacterial, and viral infections.


Then why did you state that colloidal silver could cure Job’s syndrome?

QUOTE
From the FDA-Approved products' websites, their silver "ions" kill all relevant pathogens, including fungi and viruses. It wouldn't cure Job's Syndrome, but it would effectively *treat* Job's Syndrome. My bad.


According to you. Please site where Silverlon has been tested and proven effective for the treatment of the infections related to Jobs’ syndrome.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
From the FDA-Approved products' websites, their silver "ions" kill all relevant pathogens, including fungi and viruses. It wouldn't cure Job's Syndrome, but it would effectively *treat* Job's Syndrome. My bad.


According to you. Please site where Silverlon has been tested and proven effective for the treatment of the infections related to Jobs’ syndrome.

The lack of anyone disagreeing with GeneSplicer, ever, is at least *consistent* with him having sockpuppets.


Only if you operate on the most base and childish reasoning skills. I have disagreed with very few on this forum. So using your childish reasoning, that must mean that most of the 28230 members are most likely just sockpuppet accounts.

QUOTE
I'm still waiting for TheDoc to tell me how logical MjPants' suggestion for holding a firebox assembly together with pitch is.


So why don’t you go do that in the right thread? I know reason is not in your collection of skills. Is forum etiquette?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I'm still waiting for TheDoc to tell me how logical MjPants' suggestion for holding a firebox assembly together with pitch is.


So why don’t you go do that in the right thread? I know reason is not in your collection of skills. Is forum etiquette?

Anybody else here see any problem with using pitch to glue a firebox together? Please speak up. Otherwise, I've got to assume that everyone here is a complete idiot, and I'm totally wasting my time.


Yes. It has to be that everyone is a total idiot and that you are the only educated one here.

So educated that you have claimed that malaria has no cure.

So educated that you claim Parvo has no cure.

So educated that you cannot back up your claims with legitimate sources or rational arguments.
wcelliott
QUOTE
Yes. It has to be that everyone is a total idiot and that you are the only educated one here.

So educated that you have claimed that malaria has no cure.

So educated that you claim Parvo has no cure.


More misrepresentations of my positions - People treated with conventional therapy for malaria often die despite the conventional treatment. Likewise, Parvo and dogs. The African trials of CS versus malaria showed 100% cure rate, and the anecdotal evidence shows a high percentage of dogs treated with CS for Parvo lived, while dogs treated with conventional Parvo therapy have less likelihood of surviving. It's a virus and they prescribe antibiotics for it. (For those who don't know, antibiotics only work on bacterial infections. Conventional antivirals are generally virus-specific.)

So, do *you* see anything wrong with the idea of gluing a firebox together with pitch, or are you a complete idiot? I didn't call MjPants a complete idiot in that thread because we seemed to be having a more or less civil discussion. According to "TheDoc", MjPants arguments were all intelligent and well-thought-out. Do you need my help in understanding why you wouldn't use pitch to hold a firebox together?

Oh, and I thought I'd mentioned it before, but Quantum Mechanics was a required course for my Bachelors in EE, and I have since been interested in Quantum Dots, and purchased and read a couple of books on the topic.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
More misrepresentations of my positions


That is a lie.

QUOTE
People treated with conventional therapy for malaria often die despite the conventional treatment.


That is not what you have claimed in the past.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=358424

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
People treated with conventional therapy for malaria often die despite the conventional treatment.


That is not what you have claimed in the past.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=358424

We already *know* what happens to people who get malaria, we *don't* have a cure for it,


Not my fault you cannot remember what you have claimed.

So, tell me agian how I have misrepresented your positions when I can quote you directly in support of what I have stated you have claimed?

And gain, you have yet to do the same. You keep posting that I stated this or that but cannot show where I made such claims.

QUOTE
Likewise, Parvo and dogs.


And likewise, you claimed that parvo had no treatment, and that is erroneous.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=265123

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Likewise, Parvo and dogs.


And likewise, you claimed that parvo had no treatment, and that is erroneous.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=265123

Parvo has no known treatments,


You also are either ignorant of or totally dismiss the vaccination for Parvo. You claimed that colloidal silver is the only cure, and that too is erroneous.

You have alos spoken to the mortality rate of parvo.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=357776

QUOTE
you'll find that CS seems to work pretty well on Parvo, which kills puppies quickly and has a 50% mortality rate


This claim of your is also erroneous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_parvovirus

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
you'll find that CS seems to work pretty well on Parvo, which kills puppies quickly and has a 50% mortality rate


This claim of your is also erroneous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_parvovirus

Untreated cases of CPV2 will have a mortality (percentage that will die) approaching 91%. With aggressive therapy survival rates may approach 80-95%[36]


Any other claims of medical fact you wish to make?

QUOTE
The African trials of CS versus malaria showed 100% cure rate,


Again, legitimate source for this? Repetition of a claim does not make it true.

And again, where is the source for the doctors testimony?

Do you have a source other than the HIV/AIDS denial site you used earlier?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The African trials of CS versus malaria showed 100% cure rate,


Again, legitimate source for this? Repetition of a claim does not make it true.

And again, where is the source for the doctors testimony?

Do you have a source other than the HIV/AIDS denial site you used earlier?

and the anecdotal evidence shows a high percentage of dogs treated with CS for Parvo lived, while dogs treated with conventional Parvo therapy have less likelihood of surviving.


Again, source? You keep making these claims of fact yet cannot back them up.

And again, medical fact seem to disagree with your unsubstantiated claims.

QUOTE
It's a virus and they prescribe antibiotics for it. (For those who don't know, antibiotics only work on bacterial infections. Conventional antivirals are generally virus-specific.)


Parvo is a virus and therefore there is no cure for it. The treatment of Parvo (the intestinal form) deals with keeping the dog hydrated and dealing with secondary infections.

And yes, colloidal sivler is mentioned, but again, it has not been able to stand up to testing.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It's a virus and they prescribe antibiotics for it. (For those who don't know, antibiotics only work on bacterial infections. Conventional antivirals are generally virus-specific.)


Parvo is a virus and therefore there is no cure for it. The treatment of Parvo (the intestinal form) deals with keeping the dog hydrated and dealing with secondary infections.

And yes, colloidal sivler is mentioned, but again, it has not been able to stand up to testing.

There is also anecdotal evidence suggesting that colloidal silver [30] is effective at treating CPV although currently regulatory authorities are discouraging its use due to potential toxicity issues and lack of demonstrated efficacy.[31]


But that would tie back into your claim that there is no FDA ban on colloidal silver for the treatment of anything. And why is ti banned? Due to lack of proof of efficacy and concerns of toxicity.

And this doesn’t even address your other medical claims that are simply ones made out of ignorance. Take for example your claim that Edward Jenner tested the smallpox vaccine on himself.

QUOTE
So, do *you* see anything wrong with the idea of gluing a firebox together with pitch, or are you a complete idiot?


Wow. More personal insults.

Not my argument despite your claims of me populating the forum with a few thousand sockpuppet accounts. And as far as entertaining your laughable theory about the great pyramids, one does not debate a person who puts forth claims like yours in that area. I’m sure many like to do so for entertainment, but I prefer not to waste my time. It is no different than arguing with believers of the face and pyramids on Mars, ley lines, dowsing and the like.

And again, there is s forum for that discussion already.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So, do *you* see anything wrong with the idea of gluing a firebox together with pitch, or are you a complete idiot?


Wow. More personal insults.

Not my argument despite your claims of me populating the forum with a few thousand sockpuppet accounts. And as far as entertaining your laughable theory about the great pyramids, one does not debate a person who puts forth claims like yours in that area. I’m sure many like to do so for entertainment, but I prefer not to waste my time. It is no different than arguing with believers of the face and pyramids on Mars, ley lines, dowsing and the like.

And again, there is s forum for that discussion already.

I didn't call MjPants a complete idiot in that thread because we seemed to be having a more or less civil discussion. According to "TheDoc", MjPants arguments were all intelligent and well-thought-out. Do you need my help in understanding why you wouldn't use pitch to hold a firebox together?


No more than I would need input from a believer of the face and pyramids on Mars as to why they couldn’t be fakes or how NASA is lying to the entire world.

QUOTE
Oh, and I thought I'd mentioned it before, but Quantum Mechanics was a required course for my Bachelors in EE, and I have since been interested in Quantum Dots, and purchased and read a couple of books on the topic.


LOL. Right. I’m sure your EE degree required you to take courses related to whatever topics ever come up in this forum or others when you are challenged. So now you are an expert when it comes to QM? Due to one course? Your appeal to authority is spreading thinner and thinner.

But again, you brush by the fact that you just claimed that the manufacturers of the bandages you cited over and over are simply not educated enough and mistakenly use the wrong terminology. Odd how when your claims are shown to be erroneous, laughable or conflicting, you ignore them and move on.

And what hypocrisy. You have read a few books? We all know based upon your previous comments on formal education that being autodidactic is simply no good. So if that is all you have, then you are simply not qualified to talk about QM.

This means your claims about the manufacturers of Silverlon bandages is one from an unqualified layman versus the actually manufacturers of the product.

Care to actually post something backed up by facts next time or do I get more unsubstantiated claims, tangent or unrelated topics or lies from you?
wcelliott
QUOTE
QUOTE 
So, do *you* see anything wrong with the idea of gluing a firebox together with pitch, or are you a complete idiot?

Wow. More personal insults.


Wow, more misrepresentations of plain English.

Maybe you missed the "or" right there in the sentence after the comma.

You either understand why you can't glue a firebox together with pitch, OR you're a complete idiot. I think that sentence stands up to scrutiny.

Since you "haven't got time" to answer this one, obvious question but *do* have plenty of time to state a bunch of nonsensical crap, I'll have to assume that you *don't* understand why using pitch to glue together a firebox is a dumb idea.

I'll explain it to you.

Pitch is like tar. It melts at high temperatures, and it burns at high temperatures.

If you try to hold together a firebox that's made up of more than one piece using something that melts and burns, it won't hold it together because it'll melt and burn away. Then you have one or more seams that have nothing holding the assembly together, and one or more seams that allow water to enter the partially-submerged firebox and douse the fire.

It's a shame that such a clever person as yourself (nor TheDoc) could provide the answer as to why MjPants' idea for holding the firebox together with pitch *wasn't* a good idea, as TheDoc had asserted in his neg to me that MjPants' arguments/positions/objections were all so well thought out. Actually, all of MjPants' arguments/positions/objections were about this same level of quality. None really showed that he'd given any of his posts any real consideration before posting them.

Hey, are *you* clear on the distinction between elements and compounds yet? You seemed to keep coming back to the "silver is silver" thing like you'd caught me making a similarly stupid (similar to the pitch-as-firebox-glue stupid) comment. Or was high school chemisty one of the courses you missed? Because silver *is* silver, and nanoparticles of silver are like clusters of grapes, not crystalline at all, as QM (which I assure you was required to get an Electrical Engineering degree) precludes a small number of metallic atoms from maintaining a crystalline state. Look at this picture of silver nanoparticles, and tell me how crystalline they look to you.

http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/...re/F3?highres=y

The things that look like snowballs are nanoparticles of silver, they're in the range of 1-10nanometers in diameter (sticking to the active sites of the HIV-1 virus). Each silver atom is about 0.2-0.3 nanometers in diameter, so how many silver atoms can there be in a cluster that's 1 - 10 nanometers in diameter? Not a whole lot. Not enough to claim they're in a "crystalline" state, especially not at room temperature. But that information came from an FDA-Approved product's website, right? The FDA approved the product based on its effectiveness, and they said it's effective against bacteria, viruses, and fungi.

And I've already posted a link to the PhysOrg article showing how plant pathogens use the same ancient proteins/enzymes to breach the cell walls of plants that the malaria parasite uses to penetrate the cell membranes of human red blood cells. And the guys from Texas (who provided the microphotographs of the inactive HIV-1 viruses with the "snowballs" stuck to the sites the virus uses to invade cell membranes) already stated that "silver nanoparticles inhibit the virus from binding to host cells, as demonstrated in vitro." So you've got a coherent theory explaining how silver nanoparticles can be effective against malaria, bacteria, viruses, and fungi. (Not toxins, though.)

As for the website containing the quotes from the doctor who treated malaria patients in Africa, curing all of them treated with CS while watching the conventionally-treated malaria patients die, I was unaware that the manufacturer of the CS was an AIDS/HIV denier. A lot of people have strange beliefs, yet do good things professionally. I, myself, think Tom Cruise and John Travolta are good actors. I also think they're nuts for believing in Scientology, but they make good movies. (This was why it was recognized early-on in debates that "ad hominem" arguments are fallacies. Even people you don't like can say or do things that are correct.)
wcelliott
Just for clarification - Is it considered quackery if I say that there's *anything* that you can buy at a vitamin store that helps prevent cancer?

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20070905/...ncer-prevention

http://www.physorg.com/news133063946.html

http://www.physorg.com/news81619324.html

http://www.physorg.com/news127734045.html

GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Wow, more misrepresentations of plain English.


Pity what you post does not back up your claims, again.

QUOTE
Maybe you missed the "or" right there in the sentence after the comma.


The “or” is irrelevant considering that you have tried to setup the premise that either I agree with you or I’m an idiot. You failed to grasp that you use personal insults.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Maybe you missed the "or" right there in the sentence after the comma.


The “or” is irrelevant considering that you have tried to setup the premise that either I agree with you or I’m an idiot. You failed to grasp that you use personal insults.

You either understand why you can't glue a firebox together with pitch, OR you're a complete idiot. I think that sentence stands up to scrutiny.


Again, people either agree with you or they are an idiot. And again, you insult people way to often.

And again, speaking of understanding English, did you miss the part where I said it was not my argument?

Did you miss the fact that there is a thread already dedicated to this topic and this is not the one?

And did you miss the fact that I stated that I would not even try to debate someone who makes claims about the Giza pyramids that are akin to the nonsensical claims one get form those who believe that there is a face an pyramid on Mars?

So reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

QUOTE
Since you "haven't got time" to answer this one,


No, that is wrong and a lie since I stated exactly why I am not going to entertain this latest dodge and irrelevant tangent.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Since you "haven't got time" to answer this one,


No, that is wrong and a lie since I stated exactly why I am not going to entertain this latest dodge and irrelevant tangent.

obvious question but *do* have plenty of time to state a bunch of nonsensical crap,


Right. Nonsensical crap like showing how what you recently claimed about your statements are not backed up by what you posted earlier.

Now that you have egg on your face again, you now seek to change the subject to something I have never debated or seek to debate while dismissing the fact that you cannot even remember or honestly reflect what you have posted on this forum.

QUOTE
I'll have to assume that you *don't* understand why using pitch to glue together a firebox is a dumb idea.


You can assume and keep assuming whatever you want. Your assumptions have led you into making claims about me and what I have posted that you cannot back up by citing where I stated what you claim.

You have also posted claims such as the following:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I'll have to assume that you *don't* understand why using pitch to glue together a firebox is a dumb idea.


You can assume and keep assuming whatever you want. Your assumptions have led you into making claims about me and what I have posted that you cannot back up by citing where I stated what you claim.

You have also posted claims such as the following:

We already *know* what happens to people who get malaria, we *don't* have a cure for it,


QUOTE
Parvo has no known treatments,


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Parvo has no known treatments,


you'll find that CS seems to work pretty well on Parvo, which kills puppies quickly and has a 50% mortality rate


And all of these claims were made by you in direct conflict with know and easily verifiable facts.

Then you claim you never made these statements and also claim I have misrepresented what you have posted.

When I cite exactly what you have stated in the past proving that my claims are valid and your claims of misrepresentation are not, you now seek to try to change the topic entirely to something I never argued, am not interested in arguing and belongs in another thread.

Your insults used to try to draw me into such a debate while ignoring just how you have been show once again to not know what you are talking about is such a painfully obvious and juvenile tactic, I almost feel embarrassed for you.

But again, this is your name and reputation. Do with it as you will.

You also ignored twice the fact that that you just claimed that the manufacturers of the bandages you cited over and over are simply not educated enough and mistakenly use the wrong terminology.

Then there is your claim that you read a few books about QM and this qualifies you to speak to the matter while earlier such autodidactic knowledge was not equal to and inferior to formal education.

So hypocrisy and contradiction is another result of your claims that you cannot face.

And back to the lack of comprehension on your part, I specifically asked in my last post :

QUOTE
Care to actually post something backed up by facts next time or do I get more unsubstantiated claims, tangent or unrelated topics or lies from you? 


So you decided to post more lies, more insults and a tangent.

So unless you can face the fact that you have changed your claims over time, cannot back up your claims with facts and have posted what many have seen a simplistic lies, not to mention this latest juvenile attempt to change the topic, you have nothing to back up your claims about colloidal silver other than patently dishonest tactics.

The levels of intellectual dishonesty you keep sinking to is astounding in general, but more so for someone who has time after time tried to paint themselves as some sort of authority in so many fields of study.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Care to actually post something backed up by facts next time or do I get more unsubstantiated claims, tangent or unrelated topics or lies from you? 


So you decided to post more lies, more insults and a tangent.

So unless you can face the fact that you have changed your claims over time, cannot back up your claims with facts and have posted what many have seen a simplistic lies, not to mention this latest juvenile attempt to change the topic, you have nothing to back up your claims about colloidal silver other than patently dishonest tactics.

The levels of intellectual dishonesty you keep sinking to is astounding in general, but more so for someone who has time after time tried to paint themselves as some sort of authority in so many fields of study.

Hey, are *you* clear on the distinction between elements and compounds yet?


It is clear that you have no clue of what you speak and keep viewing the world on simplistic platitudes. Again, if silver is silver, then oxygen is oxygen and CO2 and O3 are fine to breath.

QUOTE
You seemed to keep coming back to the "silver is silver" thing like you'd caught me making a similarly stupid (similar to the pitch-as-firebox-glue stupid) comment.


And the fact that you cannot explain or address how such a simplistic platitude is right or prove your claim fact is all the proof I need to illustrate just how ignorant your claim is.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You seemed to keep coming back to the "silver is silver" thing like you'd caught me making a similarly stupid (similar to the pitch-as-firebox-glue stupid) comment.


And the fact that you cannot explain or address how such a simplistic platitude is right or prove your claim fact is all the proof I need to illustrate just how ignorant your claim is.

Or was high school chemisty one of the courses you missed?


So more insults rather than addressing your cognitive dissidence over your simplistic platitude. I know you are upset since you now have egg on your face for the umpteenth time, but there is no reason to act more childlike.

QUOTE
Because silver *is* silver,


According to you and your simplistic platitude. So oxygen must be oxygen. Go try breathing CO2 and O3.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Because silver *is* silver,


According to you and your simplistic platitude. So oxygen must be oxygen. Go try breathing CO2 and O3.

and nanoparticles of silver are like clusters of grapes, not crystalline at all,


According to you, but again, one of the sites you kept referencing states that they use silver nanocrystals. So either a layman like you is correct or the manufacturers of the product are.

QUOTE
as QM (which I assure you was required to get an Electrical Engineering degree) precludes a small number of metallic atoms from maintaining a crystalline state.


According to a layman in the topic. You are not an expert in every field contrary to what you yourself might thing.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
as QM (which I assure you was required to get an Electrical Engineering degree) precludes a small number of metallic atoms from maintaining a crystalline state.


According to a layman in the topic. You are not an expert in every field contrary to what you yourself might thing.

Look at this picture of silver nanoparticles, and tell me how crystalline they look to you.


Irrelevant since I can and have used a reference you yourself posted that states they use silver nanocrystals in their products. So either the manufacturer of this product were wrong or you are.

QUOTE
The things that look like snowballs are nanoparticles of silver, they're in the range of 1-10nanometers in...., viruses, and fungi.


Again according to the layman in the subject. If you think the manufacturers are wrong, then contact them and let them know why.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The things that look like snowballs are nanoparticles of silver, they're in the range of 1-10nanometers in...., viruses, and fungi.


Again according to the layman in the subject. If you think the manufacturers are wrong, then contact them and let them know why.

And I've already posted a link to the PhysOrg article showing how plant pathogens use the same ancient proteins/enzymes to breach the cell walls of plants that the malaria parasite uses to penetrate the cell membranes of human red blood cells.


Where?

QUOTE
And the guys from Texas (who provided the microphotographs of the inactive HIV-1 viruses with the "snowballs" stuck to the sites the virus uses to invade cell membranes) already stated that "silver nanoparticles inhibit the virus from binding to host cells, as demonstrated in vitro."


Again, where?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And the guys from Texas (who provided the microphotographs of the inactive HIV-1 viruses with the "snowballs" stuck to the sites the virus uses to invade cell membranes) already stated that "silver nanoparticles inhibit the virus from binding to host cells, as demonstrated in vitro."


Again, where?

So you've got a coherent theory explaining how silver nanoparticles can be effective against malaria, bacteria, viruses, and fungi.


Again, according to you, a layman in the subject and again contrary to what the manufacturers claim.

QUOTE
(Not toxins, though.)


Again, not my fault then when you were talking about certain infections that you were ignorant about the related toxin that often have to be dealt with as well as the infections themselves.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
(Not toxins, though.)


Again, not my fault then when you were talking about certain infections that you were ignorant about the related toxin that often have to be dealt with as well as the infections themselves.

As for the website containing the quotes from the doctor who treated malaria patients in Africa,


And what website was that? Was that they HIV/AIDS denial site?

QUOTE
curing all of them treated with CS while watching the conventionally-treated malaria patients die,


According to what verifiable source? You keep making such claims but cannot provide a source.

And don't forget gonorrhea. You claimed they were cured of that by CS as well.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
curing all of them treated with CS while watching the conventionally-treated malaria patients die,


According to what verifiable source? You keep making such claims but cannot provide a source.

And don't forget gonorrhea. You claimed they were cured of that by CS as well.

I was unaware that the manufacturer of the CS was an AIDS/HIV denier.


Wow. Way to lie. I have been mentioning it for pages now. The website you cited that hosts the story about the doctor actively deny HIV/AIDS.

You would have to either not comprehend that statement I made over and over or you are lying again to claim that I stated that the manufacture was denying HIV/AIDS.

QUOTE
A lot of people have strange beliefs, yet do good things professionally.
I, myself, think Tom Cruise and Jhn Travolta are good actors. I also think they're nuts for believing in Scientology, but they make good movies. (This was why it was recognized early-on in debates that "ad hominem" arguments are fallacies.


And what ad-hominems would they be?

Would it be you trying to claim that I worked for a pharmaceutical company when I first challenged your claims about colloidal silver?

Or would that be when you called me a liar even after I illustrated how what you claim I stated I never did?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A lot of people have strange beliefs, yet do good things professionally.
I, myself, think Tom Cruise and Jhn Travolta are good actors. I also think they're nuts for believing in Scientology, but they make good movies. (This was why it was recognized early-on in debates that "ad hominem" arguments are fallacies.


And what ad-hominems would they be?

Would it be you trying to claim that I worked for a pharmaceutical company when I first challenged your claims about colloidal silver?

Or would that be when you called me a liar even after I illustrated how what you claim I stated I never did?

Even people you don't like can say or do things that are correct.)


Wow. “Even people like me”.

You mean people who have shown your claims to be backed by nothing but your personal faith?

Or do you mean people like me who have commented on your claims and have show where you made those claims contrary to your claiming of never having made them?

Or is this back to you looking down on people who are not formally educated?

It seems that many “people like me” on this forum who argue using verifiable facts always seem to be castigate by people who make many claims but cannot back them up, like you.

So, care to address just how you made the claims I said you did or do you childishly continue to try to goad me into a debate about a topic that I have no interest in?

Again, your name and reputation.

You seemed to be occupied with what readers of the forum would think on several occasions. I’m willing to bet that since I have used your own posts to back up my claims regarding what you have stated that your appeal to the readers of the forum will not be mentioned for a while.

This doesn’t even include how the readers, casual or otherwise, view you.

How embarrassing is it for you to forget what you claimed as fact to disagree with what you now try to claim is fact?

That paints you as more than a hypocrite. That tells me that you lack a great deal of continuity in your positions and standards to your thoughts.

Either that or your claims are transitory of the moment and in an attempt to simply win an argument regardless of the facts of the matter.

And that level of dishonesty is something commonly found in a highly biased and closed minded person. Your blind faith claims in colloidal silver would also support this appearance.
RealityCheck

Hi guys. This is getting a bit wearying to read.

How about you both get together with PMs and establish your essential points clearly....and then post your 'joint communique' REVIEW of the state-of-play stances/claims/rebuttals etc?

Otherwise this is all getting lost in the ever-expanding tit-for-tat 'entagnglements', hehehe. :-)

Cheers!

RC.
.
wcelliott
QUOTE
QUOTE 
Hey, are *you* clear on the distinction between elements and compounds yet? 

GS:

It is clear that you have no clue of what you speak and keep viewing the world on simplistic platitudes. Again, if silver is silver, then oxygen is oxygen and CO2 and O3 are fine to breath.


*IF* SILVER IS SILVER?!?!

In what sense is silver NOT silver?

And nice attempt at logic, but silver *is* silver, and oxygen is oxygen, but CO2 is a *compound*, a *molecule* that includes both oxygen and carbon, and ozone is another molecule made up of three oxygen atoms (each of which is still OXYGEN).

And it's clear that you've never taken Chemistry, even in high school.

This isn't a debate, I'm trying to get the word out to as many people as possible so that they know that there are effective alternatives to the increasingly ineffective antibiotics. More people die in the US from MRSA than die from AIDS. About a million people per year die from malaria, including lots of people who are undergoing the conventional "treatment" for malaria.

Where did I get the quote:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
QUOTE 
Hey, are *you* clear on the distinction between elements and compounds yet? 

GS:

It is clear that you have no clue of what you speak and keep viewing the world on simplistic platitudes. Again, if silver is silver, then oxygen is oxygen and CO2 and O3 are fine to breath.


*IF* SILVER IS SILVER?!?!

In what sense is silver NOT silver?

And nice attempt at logic, but silver *is* silver, and oxygen is oxygen, but CO2 is a *compound*, a *molecule* that includes both oxygen and carbon, and ozone is another molecule made up of three oxygen atoms (each of which is still OXYGEN).

And it's clear that you've never taken Chemistry, even in high school.

This isn't a debate, I'm trying to get the word out to as many people as possible so that they know that there are effective alternatives to the increasingly ineffective antibiotics. More people die in the US from MRSA than die from AIDS. About a million people per year die from malaria, including lots of people who are undergoing the conventional "treatment" for malaria.

Where did I get the quote:

QUOTE 
And the guys from Texas (who provided the microphotographs of the inactive HIV-1 viruses with the "snowballs" stuck to the sites the virus uses to invade cell membranes) already stated that "silver nanoparticles inhibit the virus from binding to host cells, as demonstrated in vitro." 

GS:

Again, where?


Uh, from the same site I just referenced, with the link to Picture 3... Remember reading the "guys from Texas" part of the first part of the sentence? I've only posted this link about two dozen times now, but here it is again:

http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6

QUOTE
Abstract
The interaction of nanoparticles with biomolecules and microorganisms is an expanding field of research. Within this field, an area that has been largely unexplored is the interaction of metal nanoparticles with viruses. In this work, we demonstrate that silver nanoparticles undergo a size-dependent interaction with HIV-1, with nanoparticles exclusively in the range of 1–10 nm attached to the virus. The regular spatial arrangement of the attached nanoparticles, the center-to-center distance between nanoparticles, and the fact that the exposed sulfur-bearing residues of the glycoprotein knobs would be attractive sites for nanoparticle interaction suggest that silver nanoparticles interact with the HIV-1 virus via preferential binding to the gp120 glycoprotein knobs. Due to this interaction, silver nanoparticles inhibit the virus from binding to host cells, as demonstrated in vitro.


And you seem to display an anti-educational attitude, almost as if the more education a person has, the less intelligent they are. Remember the topic of the "debate", though. It's about alternative medicines and how everyone who believes that there are some alternatives to what doctors prescribe that work even better than what they prescribe. I've stated before that I feel that doctors are heroes, moreso than people who happen to be at the right place at the right time to do something heroic, since doctors spend something like 8 years in medical school and a couple more years in residency pulling long hours that would be illegal in most other occupations, just so that they can be "at the right place at the right time" when people need their help. The doctors I've known (and worked with when I had my own company) spent a LOT of time reading and keeping up with new research. Now, here you are asserting that the reading I've been doing since getting my education is worthless (and that my education itself is worthless).

But I thought your whole point was that ONLY doctors know anything about drugs/treatments/cures...

I can't figure out which side of the "debate" you're on now.

And I frankly don't care what you think, since you're arguing about a subject that's clearly over your head. That may hurt your feelings, but it's as accurate an assessment of the situation as I can make, based on your flawed logic and your lack of understanding of the first three chapters in any High School Chemistry textbook, when to understand how enzymes work, you really need to understand quantum mechanics, as enzymes can't be explained with chemistry alone.

http://www.physorg.com/news125156349.html

"Natural enzymes, which are relatively large protein molecules, are the powerful catalysts that control the reactions that sustain life. They play a central role in the chemical reactions involved in the transformation of food into the essential nutrients that provide energy, among many other critical functions.

Houk's team of 30 computational chemists uses quantum mechanical calculations to explore chemical reactions with supercomputers. Quantum mechanics is the fundamental theory that can predict all chemistry.
Houk and Baker's research groups have worked together for three years. Using algorithms and supercomputers, the UCLA chemists design the active site for the enzymes — the area of the enzymes in which the chemical reactions take place —"

The active sites are the sites mentioned in the Texas paper (please don't make me post that link again) that the silver nanoparticles stick to, jacking up their function.

From:

http://www.physorg.com/news137086046.html

"Key to virulence protein entry into host cells discovered
Researchers from the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute (VBI) at Virginia Tech have identified the region of a large family of virulence proteins in oomycete plant pathogens that enables the proteins to enter the cells of their hosts....
By preventing this protective mechanism in the host, the virulence proteins ensure that the pathogen can establish an unassailable foothold in the plant tissue from which the pathogen can pursue its destructive path.
...
The researchers also demonstrated that the RXLR and dEER motifs could be replaced by similar targeting sequences found in effector proteins produced by the malarial parasite Plasmodium. This hints that the targets of the effectors in the soybean and human hosts may be very ancient.

VBI Professor Brett Tyler remarked: "The finding that virulence proteins from oomycetes and the malaria parasite Plasmodium use the same entry mechanism means that we may be able to use the same or similar drugs to block infection by both groups of pathogens. This type of approach may also be relevant to other groups of pathogens, such as fungi, which we also suspect of slipping virulence proteins into host cells."

I think the key premise to your "snake-oil" argument was that no one substance could possibly be effective against such a wide range of pathogens - bacteria (e.g., MRSA), viruses (e.g., HIV-1), parasites (e.g., malaria), and fungi (e.g., athlete's foot/dandruff). "This hints that the targets of the effectors in the soybean and human hosts may be very ancient." Ancient, as in, before plants, animals, and fungi diverged in the evolution of life.

Your feelings seem to be getting hurt by my statements, but I think you've overlooked the hundreds of times you've called me a liar. If you want this discussion to be more civil, I'd prefer a civilized discussion to this sort of catfight, myself. I don't care to go back through pages and pages of muck to dredge up specific quotes about who said what, exactly, I tend to rely on my memory to state what I recall was stated, and inaccuracies can creep in that way. Most people would be willing to cut others a little bit of slack if the intent of the quote was mostly accurate, even if the specific words didn't match up.

If you stop calling me a liar every post, I'll stop insulting your intelligence, and we can discuss what's an inherently interesting topic in a civilized tone.

GeneSplicer
With all due respect RC, that’s okay. I’ll pass. The last time I PMed wcelliot, the reply was “go f*** yourself”.

Sorry for the long replies, but I can cut then down if you prefer.

Part of the reason for such long replies is the pedantic nature of wcelliott. In debates with others and myself, he has displayed how he will try to take something out of context or spin it if it is not uber-specific. Even then, he still endulges in such actions.

The fact remains that wcelliott’s claims are not backed by facts.

He has to resort to misrepresentations of legitimate medical research and simplistic platitudes.

He claims that what he has posted has been misrepresented by me, but I have shown time after time that his claims are fluid and ever-changing.

I have also cited exactly where he has made claims that he recently claimed not to have made.

Then there is:
  • his ignoring question regarding these inconsistencies and contradictions
  • his claims of what TheDoc, myself and others have posted without being able to cite where we actually stated such things
  • the accusations of sockpuppett accounts based upon the lack of disagreement between people.

This doesn’t even include his apparent arrogance due to his formal education, claims of his mastery of discussed topics and appeals to authority.

There are many, many more items and instances, but those should suffice.

I do believe he lost the debate long ago. The rest is just entertainment at this point, especially when he accuses me of actions like stalking due to me citing how he has his wok IP address posted online in forums he has gone to.

wcelliott
QUOTE
especially when he accuses me of actions like stalking due to me citing how he has his wok IP address posted online in forums he has gone to.


I'll assume that this last post was written before my offering an olive branch, you stop calling me a liar, and I'll take a more civil tone in my posts, as well.

But since you brought this up (the quote above), along with accusations that I misrepresent what you've said), I think that this statement bears closer examination. GS didn't merely cite that my work IP address was posted online in other forums I've gone to, he implicitly threatened to contact my company and point out to them that I was posting to the web on their computers in an obvious attempt to get me fired. Which he later claimed was all in my head, that he threatened no such thing, etc..

Anyone reading it would've interpreted it as I did, as a threat to my job. (What GS doesn't realize is that there are people in my chain of command who have health problems that I was attempting to help them with via alternative medicines, so I really wasn't in any danger of getting fired, I'd already pointed some of them to alternative medicine websites. They have my resume, and they *know* I was Director of BioEngineering Research for two companies before they hired me.)

I still consider it as sleazy a tactic as any I've ever seen on any forum.

But, the olive branch remains in-effect. If you'll stop calling me a liar, I'll be more civil in our discussion.

I feel I've made my case for "nanosilver hydrosol/colloidal silver", and now, if anyone's interested, I've posted a number of links showing how taking more Vitamin D can reduce the likelihood of getting cancer. We can drop the "snake-oil" topic and discuss whether the amount of Vitamin D in milk is adequate for good health or not.

Cheers, RC. Always good hearing from you.
RealityCheck
.
double post removed.

.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
*IF* SILVER IS SILVER?!?!

In what sense is silver NOT silver?


You keep forgetting, it is not up to me to prove your claims. You claim that all silver is silver. Using your reasoning, oxygen is oxygen.

So either pony up the proof of your claim or you have nothing but the unsubstantiated claim. Repetition doesn’t change that.

QUOTE
And nice attempt at logic, but silver *is* silver, and oxygen is oxygen, but CO2 is a *compound*, a *molecule* that includes both oxygen and carbon, and ozone is another molecule made up of three oxygen atoms (each of which is still OXYGEN)


And the silver compounds noted by some of the manufacturers of silver based productss are not just silver. You keep going on using this circular reasoning that all silver product are just colloidal silver and CS is nothing more than water and silver so all these products are just water and silver.

Again, silver nanocrystals as cited by you in one FDA approved product.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And nice attempt at logic, but silver *is* silver, and oxygen is oxygen, but CO2 is a *compound*, a *molecule* that includes both oxygen and carbon, and ozone is another molecule made up of three oxygen atoms (each of which is still OXYGEN)


And the silver compounds noted by some of the manufacturers of silver based productss are not just silver. You keep going on using this circular reasoning that all silver product are just colloidal silver and CS is nothing more than water and silver so all these products are just water and silver.

Again, silver nanocrystals as cited by you in one FDA approved product.

.And it's clear that you've never taken Chemistry, even in high school.


Yes. Post whatever castigation you need to about me.

QUOTE
This isn't a debate,


Yes, it is. IF you think it is not, then why are you debating? Poorly mind you, but still debating.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This isn't a debate,


Yes, it is. IF you think it is not, then why are you debating? Poorly mind you, but still debating.

I'm trying to get the word out to as many people as possible so that they know that there are effective alternatives to the increasingly ineffective antibiotics.


Wow. So you are here to SPAM the forum about colloidal silver and that is all? So you are on a debate forum operating in violation of the TOS.

So, even that withstanding, you have gotten the word out. I seriously doubt if anyone will take it to heart especially considering your lack of corroborating evidence.

QUOTE
More people die in the US from MRSA than die from AIDS. About a million people per year die from malaria, including lots of people who are undergoing the conventional "treatment" for malaria.


But your dishonesty or lazy ignorance led you to claim that there was no cure for malaria. Now you change that story. If you were so cavalier with known medical facts about malaria, what is to say that what you claim is any less unsubstantiated?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
More people die in the US from MRSA than die from AIDS. About a million people per year die from malaria, including lots of people who are undergoing the conventional "treatment" for malaria.


But your dishonesty or lazy ignorance led you to claim that there was no cure for malaria. Now you change that story. If you were so cavalier with known medical facts about malaria, what is to say that what you claim is any less unsubstantiated?

Where did I get the quote:


Yes, but you have posted so many “quotes” without proper or legitimate citation.

QUOTE
And you seem to display an anti-educational attitude, almost as if the more education a person has, the less intelligent they are.


As backed by what fact other than your hollow claim? I am not the one who dismissed autodidactic people as “homeschooled” as you did. You have also tried to make and appeal to authority based upon your formal education.

If you think I have denounced formal education, please cite where. If you cannot, then it is another unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And you seem to display an anti-educational attitude, almost as if the more education a person has, the less intelligent they are.


As backed by what fact other than your hollow claim? I am not the one who dismissed autodidactic people as “homeschooled” as you did. You have also tried to make and appeal to authority based upon your formal education.

If you think I have denounced formal education, please cite where. If you cannot, then it is another unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

Remember the topic of the "debate", though.


Oh. But you are not here to debate. You are here to SPAM the forum about colloidal silver.

And the topic of this debate was the crackpot list. You changed that.

QUOTE
It's about alternative medicines and how everyone who believes that there are some alternatives to what doctors prescribe that work even better than what they prescribe.


No, it is about you SPAMMING the forum about colloidal silver. Alternative medicine is fine if it shows some efficacy. The fact that the FDA and other countries have banned CS due to lack of efficacy and concerns over toxicity seems to be lost one you. But then again, you are the one claiming that the FDA has declared “war” on CS.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It's about alternative medicines and how everyone who believes that there are some alternatives to what doctors prescribe that work even better than what they prescribe.


No, it is about you SPAMMING the forum about colloidal silver. Alternative medicine is fine if it shows some efficacy. The fact that the FDA and other countries have banned CS due to lack of efficacy and concerns over toxicity seems to be lost one you. But then again, you are the one claiming that the FDA has declared “war” on CS.

I've stated before that I feel that doctors are heroes, moreso than people who happen to be at the right place at the right time to do something heroic, since doctors spend something like 8 years in medical school and a couple more years in residency pulling long hours that would be illegal in most other occupations, just so that they can be "at the right place at the right time" when people need their help.


And you have also stated that doctors are withholding treatments out of fear I believe. I can find your exact words if you like.

QUOTE
The doctors I've known (and worked with when I had my own company) spent a LOT of time reading and keeping up with new research.


As they should research being what it is.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The doctors I've known (and worked with when I had my own company) spent a LOT of time reading and keeping up with new research.


As they should research being what it is.

Now, here you are asserting that the reading I've been doing since getting my education is worthless (and that my education itself is worthless).


LOL. You really are dishonest about what I post. I never stated that learning, either through formal channels or not, is worthless.

I used your own claims about education to illustrate your hypocrisy. You have posted negative comments about those who are self taught and have commented on your formal education. Then when the topic of QM comes up, you try to claim that since you took one course formal and have read a few book that you can comment on it with some authority.

QUOTE
But I thought your whole point was that ONLY doctors know anything about drugs/treatments/cures...


Please cite where I ever made such a claim. Just another one of your assumptions.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But I thought your whole point was that ONLY doctors know anything about drugs/treatments/cures...


Please cite where I ever made such a claim. Just another one of your assumptions.

I can't figure out which side of the "debate" you're on now.

Considering your dishonesty, I wonder why.

QUOTE
And I frankly don't care what you think, since you're arguing about a subject that's clearly over your head.


Right. I don’t need you to care what I think. The fact remains, you cannot back up your claims with fact. And when your unsubstantial claims are challenged, you resort to personal insults, accusations of working for organization you evidently hate and comments about the lack of education of others.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And I frankly don't care what you think, since you're arguing about a subject that's clearly over your head.


Right. I don’t need you to care what I think. The fact remains, you cannot back up your claims with fact. And when your unsubstantial claims are challenged, you resort to personal insults, accusations of working for organization you evidently hate and comments about the lack of education of others.

That may hurt your feelings, but it's as accurate an assessment of the situation as I can make,


LOL. Right. Tell me another one. Honesty is not one of your qualities. You are just upset since your own claims have come back to haunt you and embarrass you.

QUOTE
based on your flawed logic


As in what? You mean the logic of accusing people of using multiple accounts since the accounts in question have never disagreed? Or how about the logic of trying to use a philosophical dodge in a debate about material facts?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
based on your flawed logic


As in what? You mean the logic of accusing people of using multiple accounts since the accounts in question have never disagreed? Or how about the logic of trying to use a philosophical dodge in a debate about material facts?

and your lack of understanding of the first three chapters in any High School Chemistry textbook,


And more insults about education. Keep them coming.

QUOTE
when to understand how enzymes work,


As you do due to? So what medical class was it that you took for your EE degree that allows you to speak to such a subject?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
when to understand how enzymes work,


As you do due to? So what medical class was it that you took for your EE degree that allows you to speak to such a subject?

you really need to understand quantum mechanics,


And again, one class and a few books does not make you the authority especially if we use what you stated earlier as a standard.

QUOTE
as enzymes can't be explained with chemistry alone.


Who ever tried to here?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
as enzymes can't be explained with chemistry alone.


Who ever tried to here?

I think the key premise to your "snake-oil" argument was that no one substance could possibly be effective against such a wide range of pathogens - bacteria (e.g., MRSA), viruses (e.g., HIV-1), parasites (e.g., malaria), and fungi (e.g., athlete's foot/dandruff).


No, it has to due with colloidal silver being banned in so many countries due to lack of efficacy and your attempt to try to link anything with silver in it as proof the colloidal silver does what you say it does.

QUOTE
Your feelings seem to be getting hurt by my statements,


Not at all. I am not the one posting in an emotional manner or acting in an emotional manner. Posting in an emotional manner would be example by capitalizing and using red. There are time where such is acceptable, but you use it far too often when your claims are chalenged.

Acting in an emotional manner would be multiple negative feedbacks and threatening to stalk someone as you have.

Then there are your accusation based upon your embarrassment. Like when I disclosed the fact that you left your work IP online when you posted and you accused me of stalking.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Your feelings seem to be getting hurt by my statements,


Not at all. I am not the one posting in an emotional manner or acting in an emotional manner. Posting in an emotional manner would be example by capitalizing and using red. There are time where such is acceptable, but you use it far too often when your claims are chalenged.

Acting in an emotional manner would be multiple negative feedbacks and threatening to stalk someone as you have.

Then there are your accusation based upon your embarrassment. Like when I disclosed the fact that you left your work IP online when you posted and you accused me of stalking.

but I think you've overlooked the hundreds of times you've called me a liar.


Hundreds?

And I can and have backed up the fact that you have lied. You have accused me of making statement that were proven to be erroneous and you have continue to claim I have stated thing I did not even after you have been corrected.

QUOTE
If you want this discussion to be more civil,


But you have declared that this is not a debate. You are her to SPAM the forum.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If you want this discussion to be more civil,


But you have declared that this is not a debate. You are her to SPAM the forum.

I'd prefer a civilized discussion to this sort of catfight, myself.


I’m not the one who took offence to someone challenging my claims. You did.
And you quickly went to making personal comments about me.

And I am not the only one you have made personal and condescending comment about. I believe you dismissed someone posts and later commented how you did so since you thought it was not well thought out. Again, I can find the exact quote if you wish.

QUOTE
I don't care to go back through pages and pages of muck to dredge up specific quotes about who said what, exactly,


Right. Because I have shown just how what you claim now differs from what you claimed then. And then there is the fact that you simply cannot find where I stated what you claim I have. Very sad copout on your part.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I don't care to go back through pages and pages of muck to dredge up specific quotes about who said what, exactly,


Right. Because I have shown just how what you claim now differs from what you claimed then. And then there is the fact that you simply cannot find where I stated what you claim I have. Very sad copout on your part.

I tend to rely on my memory to state what I recall was stated, and inaccuracies can creep in that way.


Again, a poor copout. No one would go from claiming that there is no cure for malaria to claiming that modern treatment are limited or lacking and deny they ever made the first claim.

QUOTE
Most people would be willing to cut others a little bit of slack if the intent of the quote was mostly accurate, even if the specific words didn't match up.


Again, very poor copout. It is not like your words changed slightly. There is a fundamental difference between claiming that there is not cure for malaria and “People treated with conventional therapy for malaria often die despite the conventional treatment.”

So you go form posting more insults to now trying to act as if you are interest in civil debating? Practice what you preach.

The fact is that you launched into one personal insult or comment after another when your claims were challenged.

And besides, you are not interested in debate. You are here to SPAM the forum about colloidal silver. And I do believe you once claimed you are also here to save lives and that I was trying to stop you.

So what was that again about civil debate?

RC,
Sorry about the long reply. Forgive me about my entertainment choices.
RealityCheck
.
Hi guys.

I understand about 'the history' between you two by now.

But that's the point of my making that suggestion....to put all that behind and start afresh (by PM would be better at this stage.....assuming no more 'history' gets in the way of polite PM conversation! hehehe).

In any case, all I want is to save my poor old eyes!

You both know by now that my curiosity/projects is/are WIDE RANGING.....and that I try to read almost EVERYTHING of interest being posted at Physforum. It's such a WEALTH of new/interesting PERSPECTIVES/IDEAS/DISCUSSIONS one doesn't find anywhere else in quite this variety on the one site! Perfect for someone like me to 'absorb and synthesise' without having to go all over the net.

Cheers and 'be cool', guys. There's always another day! Start that one 'fresh' if you (either/both of you) can/want to.....for the sake of my poor old eyes! :-)

Cheers all!

PS: A joint communique to the effect you two "Agree to disagree" is always an option at this stage! hehehe.

RC.
.
.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (RC+)
I understand about 'the history' between you two by now. 

But that's the point of my making that suggestion....to put all that behind and start afresh (by PM would be better at this stage.....assuming no more 'history' gets in the way of polite PM conversation! hehehe).


Hate to disagree with you on this one RC.

Wcelliott does not debate. He preaches. If you want a civil debate with him, then you agree with him. If not, then he starts making personal comments and accusations.

Then there are the lies. The one just cited is just one of them. You may think that such a person is capable of civil debate, I do not.

And I dare say, I am not alone. He has taken the exact same actions with others. And some he has done this with are far more patient and forgiving than I am and still they call into question his tactics.

QUOTE
In any case, all I want is to save my poor old eyes!


Like I said, forgive me for my choice of entertainment.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In any case, all I want is to save my poor old eyes!


Like I said, forgive me for my choice of entertainment.

You both know by now that my curiosity/projects is/are WIDE RANGING.....and that I try to read almost EVERYTHING of interest being posted at Physforum. It's such a WEALTH of new/interesting PERSPECTIVES/IDEAS/DISCUSSIONS one doesn't find anywhere else in quite this variety on the one site! Perfect for someone like me to 'absorb and synthesise' without having to go all over the net.

Cheers and 'be cool', guys. There's always another day! Start that one 'fresh' if you (either/both of you) can/want to.....for the sake of my poor old eyes! :-)


If he stops lying, making personal comments, logical fallacies and can actually back up his claims, fine. If not, then he simply losses the debate again.

And remember, he is not here to debate, but to SPAM the forum about colloidal silver.

RC, one question. Would you ask Grumpy to treat dad1 differently? How about PuckSR treating NewGuy differently after some of the personal comments NG has made about PuckSR?

No difference here.

But at least by me disagreeing with you wcelliott cannot claim that you are a sockpuppet account of mine.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
I'll assume that this last post was written before my offering an olive branch, you stop calling me a liar, and I'll take a more civil tone in my posts, as well.


But I have shown you to be a liar. And again, you started commenting person lay about me when I challenged your claim about colloidal silver.

QUOTE
But since you brought this up (the quote above), along with accusations that I misrepresent what you've said), I think that this statement bears closer examination. GS didn't merely cite that my work IP address was posted online in other forums I've gone to, he implicitly threatened to contact my company and point out to them that I was posting to the web on their computers in an obvious attempt to get me fired.


And that is yet another lie. I know you don’t care to backup what you claim by citing where I stated such a thing, but you will have to in order to back up that claim.

I never threatened to contact your place of business. I did ask what you did for Pratt & Whitney.

So prove me wrong. Cite where I threatened to contact the company you work for in order to get you fired.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But since you brought this up (the quote above), along with accusations that I misrepresent what you've said), I think that this statement bears closer examination. GS didn't merely cite that my work IP address was posted online in other forums I've gone to, he implicitly threatened to contact my company and point out to them that I was posting to the web on their computers in an obvious attempt to get me fired.


And that is yet another lie. I know you don’t care to backup what you claim by citing where I stated such a thing, but you will have to in order to back up that claim.

I never threatened to contact your place of business. I did ask what you did for Pratt & Whitney.

So prove me wrong. Cite where I threatened to contact the company you work for in order to get you fired.

Which he later claimed was all in my head, that he threatened no such thing, etc..


And I never did as I have explain before. So you just continue to lie about it.

Again, prove me wrong. Cite where I threatened to contact your company and get you fired.

QUOTE
Anyone reading it would've interpreted it as I did, as a threat to my job.


Only due to your assumptions or perhaps your expectations that others will act in the same manner you would.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Anyone reading it would've interpreted it as I did, as a threat to my job.


Only due to your assumptions or perhaps your expectations that others will act in the same manner you would.

(What GS doesn't realize is that there are people in my chain of command who have health problems that I was attempting to help them with via alternative medicines, so I really wasn't in any danger of getting fired, I'd already pointed some of them to alternative medicine websites. They have my resume, and they *know* I was Director of BioEngineering Research for two companies before they hired me.)


And again, you are lying. I never threatened to contact your company or to get you fired. Unless you can cite where, this is just another time you have claimed I stated something I didn’t.

QUOTE
I still consider it as sleazy a tactic as any I've ever seen on any forum.


And I still consider it a lie since I never made such a threat.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I still consider it as sleazy a tactic as any I've ever seen on any forum.


And I still consider it a lie since I never made such a threat.

But, the olive branch remains in-effect. If you'll stop calling me a liar, I'll be more civil in our discussion.


Why when you keep lying about my actions on this forum?

QUOTE
I feel I've made my case for "nanosilver hydrosol/colloidal silver", and now, if anyone's interested, I've posted a number of links showing how taking more Vitamin D can reduce the likelihood of getting cancer. We can drop the "snake-oil" topic and discuss whether the amount of Vitamin D in milk is adequate for good health or not.


You can feel all you like, but all you have done is to post one hollow claim after another from questionable sources like HIV/AIDS denial sites or have misrepresented legitimate research.

And again, when challenged in the first thread, you accuse me of working for a pharmaceutical company since I challenged your claims about colloidal silver.

The subject of this tread is the crackpot list, not the topic of the Stonehenge thread, vitamin D or even colloidal silver.

But I do thank you for giving me material proof as to why I sought to create the new crackpot list to begin with.

As I stated before, if wcelliott is your real name, then you have quite a reputation online now. Check out what happens if oneone were to Google wcelliott and colloidal silver.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wcell...olloidal+silver

Or your alternate name, wcelliot and colloidal silver.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wcell...olloidal+silver
RealityCheck
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Sep 21 2008, 04:32 AM)

Like I said, forgive me for my choice of entertainment. 



If he stops lying, making personal comments, logical fallacies and can actually back up his claims, fine.  If not, then he simply losses the debate again. 

And remember, he is not here to debate, but to SPAM the forum about colloidal silver.  

RC, one question.  Would you ask Grumpy to treat dad1 differently?  How about PuckSR treating NewGuy differently after some of the personal comments NG has made about PuckSR? 

No difference here. 

But at least by me disagreeing with you wcelliott cannot claim that you are a sockpuppet account of mine.



Hi GS.

Dad1's religious mania and Gumpy's scientific reality are 'UNresolvable differences' in such forums as this; but any 'differences' between YOU TWO should possible to resolve using science. Otherwise I wouldn't have suggested you two get together and issue a joint communique as to THE SCIENCE ONLY.

If the science on either side is conclusive, then that will out by polite debate. If it inconclusive, then that too will out via debate.

Any personal remarks based on past 'history' between you two only clouds the issu I AM INTERESTED in.....the scientific ones.

You saw for yourself that NO possible 'out' except 'fantasy' interests dad1. Hence it is not a valid comparison regarding how I react to dad1 and Grumpy etc in that religious/scientic 'irreconcilable differences' case.

HERE in this thread, it seems that the science COULD determine the matter. I just wanted to see if that was possible or not, because of the respective attitudes involved that seem to be clouding the science discussion. That's all.

You both can choose what happens next for yourselves. I just wanted to save my poor eyesight as much as possible! :-)

Cheers!

RC.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
Hi GS.
Dad1's religious mania and Gumpy's scientific reality are 'UNresolvable differences' in such forums as this; but any 'differences' between YOU TWO should possible to resolve using science. Otherwise I wouldn't have suggested you two get together and issue a joint communique as to THE SCIENCE ONLY.


But that is just the point RC. WCE is preaching his faith about colloidal silver.

Time after time the claims about CS have been found to be false. WCE simply claims that this is due to the FDA declaring war on CS.

This is not rational nor does it rely upon science.

Then there are his comments belittling standard medical research practices and testing.

Does the pattern sound familiar yet?

Like I said, I hate to disagree with you, but there is just a fundamental disagreement here as with dad1 and Grumpy.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Hi GS.
Dad1's religious mania and Gumpy's scientific reality are 'UNresolvable differences' in such forums as this; but any 'differences' between YOU TWO should possible to resolve using science. Otherwise I wouldn't have suggested you two get together and issue a joint communique as to THE SCIENCE ONLY.


But that is just the point RC. WCE is preaching his faith about colloidal silver.

Time after time the claims about CS have been found to be false. WCE simply claims that this is due to the FDA declaring war on CS.

This is not rational nor does it rely upon science.

Then there are his comments belittling standard medical research practices and testing.

Does the pattern sound familiar yet?

Like I said, I hate to disagree with you, but there is just a fundamental disagreement here as with dad1 and Grumpy.

If the science on either side is conclusive, then that will out by polite debate. If it inconclusive, then that too will out via debate.


And that is exactly what I have been operating on.

Alternative medicine that proves effective has led to medical treatments and still does. This is not the same. Fact is that he has no facts or verifiable data to support his claims.

QUOTE
Any personal remarks based on past 'history' between you two only clouds the issu I AM INTERESTED in.....the scientific ones.


Yes and again, WCE does not debate about CS. Once fact are brought up, he takes it personal.

And when I bring up the scientific fact that colloidal silver has failed repeated testing, I am told that I am not knowledgeable enough to debate the topic.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Any personal remarks based on past 'history' between you two only clouds the issu I AM INTERESTED in.....the scientific ones.


Yes and again, WCE does not debate about CS. Once fact are brought up, he takes it personal.

And when I bring up the scientific fact that colloidal silver has failed repeated testing, I am told that I am not knowledgeable enough to debate the topic.

You saw for yourself that NO possible 'out' except 'fantasy' interests dad1. Hence it is not a valid comparison regarding how I react to dad1 and Grumpy etc in that religious/scientic 'irreconcilable differences' case.


And that also exists here. There is no possible way for WCE to see colloidal silver except as a “drug” that can cure 600+ maladies and that the FDA has declared war on.

Legitimate medical research into the use of silver has proof of eficacy. Colloidal silver does not.

QUOTE
HERE in this thread, it seems that the science COULD determine the matter. I just wanted to see if that was possible or not, because of the respective attitudes involved that seem to be clouding the science discussion. That's all.


I’m not arguing this point simply due to WCE’s behavior. The fact is that the facts are not on his side, but when I point out that the FDA and other countries make the same claim, all he can say is that the FDA has declared a war on colloidal silver.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
HERE in this thread, it seems that the science COULD determine the matter. I just wanted to see if that was possible or not, because of the respective attitudes involved that seem to be clouding the science discussion. That's all.


I’m not arguing this point simply due to WCE’s behavior. The fact is that the facts are not on his side, but when I point out that the FDA and other countries make the same claim, all he can say is that the FDA has declared a war on colloidal silver.

You both can choose what happens next for yourselves. I just wanted to save my poor eyesight as much as possible!


Again, all he has to do is to cite legitimate research about colloidal silver. This does not mean trying to claim anything that uses silver is the same as colloidal silver or to cite a HIV/AIDs denial cite and its related articles.

Legitimate medical testing leads to repeat testing if a positive effect is shown.

Legitimate research is not a one off performed in 2005 with no documentation or follow-up.

If it were any other medical claims or claims of a cure or treatment would anyone seek anything less?

Did we seek anything less when Steve 1959 was here preaching about herbal remedies?
RealityCheck
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Sep 21 2008, 05:08 AM)

But that is just the point RC.  WCE is preaching his faith about colloidal silver. 

Time after time the claims about CS have been found to be false.  WCE simply claims that this is due to the FDA declaring war on CS.

This is not rational nor does it rely upon science. 

Then there are his comments belittling standard medical research practices and testing. 

Does the pattern sound familiar yet?   

Like I said, I hate to disagree with you, but there is just a fundamental disagreement here as with dad1 and Grumpy. 



And that is exactly what I have been operating on. 

Alternative medicine that proves effective has led to medical treatments and still does.  This is not the same.  Fact is that he has no facts or verifiable data to support his claims.   



Yes and again, WCE does not debate about CS. Once fact are brought up, he takes it personal. 

And when I bring up the scientific fact that colloidal silver has failed repeated testing, I am told that I am not knowledgeable enough to debate the topic. 



And that also exists here.  There is no possible way for WCE to see colloidal silver except as a “drug” that can cure 600+ maladies and that the FDA has declared war on. 

Legitimate medical research into the use of silver has proof of eficacy.  Colloidal silver does not.   



I’m not arguing this point simply due to WCE’s behavior.  The fact is that the facts are not on his side, but when I point out that the FDA and other countries make the same claim, all he can say is that the FDA has declared a war on colloidal silver. 



Again, all he has to do is to cite legitimate research about colloidal silver.  This does not mean trying to claim anything that uses silver is the same as colloidal silver or to cite a HIV/AIDs denial cite and its related articles.

Legitimate medical testing leads to repeat testing if a positive effect is shown. 

Legitimate research is not a one off  performed in 2005 with no documentation or follow-up. 

If it were any other medical claims or claims of a cure or treatment would anyone seek anything less?

Did we seek anything less when Steve 1959 was here preaching about herbal remedies?



Hi GS.

I know what you're trying to say, mate.

BUT there is a marked difference between what you call 'wcelliot preaching' and 'dad1 preaching'.

If wcelliot is indeed preaching, then THE SCIENCE will confirm/refute any claims made.....and that will be that.

BUT with dad1 preaching, NO falsification of HIS fantasy is POSSIBLE to him....since he doesn't allow science that DOES refute his fantasy claims.

See?

Where it IS possible to prove someone wrong/mistaken/partially-correct etc in THIS discussion (eventually); it is NOT possible to do any such thing in dad1's fanatsy case.

THERE we just plod on for the benefit of passersby and memebers who may be confused by dad1's BS fantasy. That's all.

HERE it remains to be clarified; or to say 'agree to disagree' and move on. Else we get nowhere and my eyes aren't getting any better! hehehe.

I'll leave you both to sort it out. I'll stop reading here for now and come back some other time to see if anything has been 'settled'.

Cheers!

RC.
.
RealityCheck
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Sep 21 2008, 05:08 AM)

But that is just the point RC.  WCE is preaching his faith about colloidal silver. 

Time after time the claims about CS have been found to be false.  WCE simply claims that this is due to the FDA declaring war on CS.

This is not rational nor does it rely upon science. 

Then there are his comments belittling standard medical research practices and testing. 

Does the pattern sound familiar yet?   

Like I said, I hate to disagree with you, but there is just a fundamental disagreement here as with dad1 and Grumpy. 



And that is exactly what I have been operating on. 

Alternative medicine that proves effective has led to medical treatments and still does.  This is not the same.  Fact is that he has no facts or verifiable data to support his claims.   



Yes and again, WCE does not debate about CS. Once fact are brought up, he takes it personal. 

And when I bring up the scientific fact that colloidal silver has failed repeated testing, I am told that I am not knowledgeable enough to debate the topic. 



And that also exists here.  There is no possible way for WCE to see colloidal silver except as a “drug” that can cure 600+ maladies and that the FDA has declared war on. 

Legitimate medical research into the use of silver has proof of eficacy.  Colloidal silver does not.   



I’m not arguing this point simply due to WCE’s behavior.  The fact is that the facts are not on his side, but when I point out that the FDA and other countries make the same claim, all he can say is that the FDA has declared a war on colloidal silver. 



Again, all he has to do is to cite legitimate research about colloidal silver.  This does not mean trying to claim anything that uses silver is the same as colloidal silver or to cite a HIV/AIDs denial cite and its related articles.

Legitimate medical testing leads to repeat testing if a positive effect is shown. 

Legitimate research is not a one off  performed in 2005 with no documentation or follow-up. 

If it were any other medical claims or claims of a cure or treatment would anyone seek anything less?

Did we seek anything less when Steve 1959 was here preaching about herbal remedies?



Hi GS.

I know what you're trying to say, mate.

BUT there is a marked difference between what you call 'wcelliot preaching' and 'dad1 preaching'.

If wcelliot is indeed preaching, then THE SCIENCE will confirm/refute any claims made.....and that will be that.

BUT with dad1 preaching, NO falsification of HIS fantasy is POSSIBLE to him....since he doesn't allow science that DOES refute his fantasy claims.

See?

Where it IS possible to prove someone wrong/mistaken/partially-correct etc in THIS discussion (eventually); it is NOT possible to do any such thing in dad1's fanatsy case.

THERE we just plod on for the benefit of passersby and memebers who may be confused by dad1's BS fantasy. That's all.

HERE it remains to be clarified; or to say 'agree to disagree' and move on. Else we get nowhere and my eyes aren't getting any better! hehehe.

I'll leave you both to sort it out. I'll stop reading here for now and come back some other time to see if anything has been 'settled'.

PS: Please BOTH/everyone be aware that I have taken no 'sides' in this. I merely gather/provide information and make comment as appropriate for the sake of clarity for my own 'reading' of the matter. Thanks.

Cheers!

RC.
.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (RC+)
Hi GS.

I know what you're trying to say, mate.

BUT there is a marked difference between what you call 'wcelliot preaching' and 'dad1 preaching'.

If wcelliot is indeed preaching, then THE SCIENCE will confirm/refute any claims made.....and that will be that.

BUT with dad1 preaching, NO falsification of HIS fantasy is POSSIBLE to him....since he doesn't allow science that DOES refute his fantasy claims.

See?


Yes I see your point, but like dad1, WCE will simply not acknowledge it. So, in the end, what difference is there between them?

And just as with dad1, most if not all will see him for what he is. I’m sure the same can be said for WCE, but in both cases, they do not see it.

QUOTE
Where it IS possible to prove someone wrong/mistaken/partially-correct etc in THIS discussion (eventually); it is NOT possible to do any such thing in dad1's fanatsy case.


True, at least not to him. But again, can the same not be said for WCE?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Where it IS possible to prove someone wrong/mistaken/partially-correct etc in THIS discussion (eventually); it is NOT possible to do any such thing in dad1's fanatsy case.


True, at least not to him. But again, can the same not be said for WCE?

THERE we just plod on for the benefit of passersby and memebers who may be confused by dad1's BS fantasy. That's all.

HERE it remains to be clarified; or to say 'agree to disagree' and move on. Else we get nowhere and my eyes aren't getting any better! hehehe.


Again, I disagree. Just as with dad1, WCE has already been proven wrong and he has effectively lost the debate.

If I, or anyone else here, agrees to disagree with the unsubstantiated claims of WCE, then you and everyone else involved with the dad1 debate should do likewise.

I doubt there is any confusion regarding dad1 and his non-xian snuff fantasy just as I am sure that there is no confusion regarding WCE’s unsubstantial claims in this thread and others.

QUOTE
I'll leave you both to sort it out. I'll stop reading here for now and come back some other time to see if anything has been 'settled'.


Most likely not. Again, you have a prime example of his outright lying about my actions. Is this any different than the likes of dad1?

In the case of dad1, I believe the point was made long ago about his sick flavor of the xian faith and his non-xian snuff fantasy.

In this case of WCE, he not only cannot back up his claims, but he is lying about what I have posted and is actively stalking me to the point he admitted doing so and tried to justify it.

Again, sorry to strain your eyes, but a disagree with you on this one. There is no debating WCE in the matter of his faith in colloidal silver.

When it comes to other subjects, who knows. I have even mentioned had I seen his debating the 9/11 truthers, I would have given him a positive, but when I tried to enter into a debate regarding UFO’s and did so in a civil manner, he was still stalking me and giving me negatives for disagreeing with him earlier.

So again, any difference that others who have taken similar actions in the past?
RealityCheck
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Sep 21 2008, 06:09 AM)

True, at least not to him.  But again, can the same not be said for WCE?



Again, I disagree.  Just as with dad1, WCE has already been proven wrong and he has effectively lost the debate. 

If I, or anyone else here, agrees to disagree with the unsubstantiated claims of WCE, then you and everyone else involved with the dad1 debate should do likewise.

I doubt there is any confusion regarding dad1 and his non-xian snuff fantasy just as I am sure that there is no confusion regarding WCE’s unsubstantial claims in this thread and others. 



Most likely not.  Again, you have a prime example of his outright lying about my actions.  Is this any different than the likes of dad1?   

In the case of dad1, I believe the point was made long ago about his sick flavor of the xian faith and his non-xian snuff fantasy. 

In this case of WCE, he not only cannot back up his claims, but he is lying about what I have posted and is actively stalking me to the point he admitted doing so and tried to justify it.

Again, sorry to strain your eyes, but a disagree with you on this one.  There is no debating WCE in the matter of his faith in colloidal silver. 

When it comes to other subjects, who knows.  I have even mentioned had I seen his debating the 9/11 truthers, I would have given him a positive, but when I tried to enter into a debate regarding UFO’s and did so in a civil manner, he was still stalking me and giving me negatives for disagreeing with him earlier. 

So again, any difference that others who have taken similar actions in the past?



GS,

As you know, because I have no admin role, I try not to get drawn into the personal accusations of stalking etc from EITHER side. That way I can concentrate on absorbing the science/logics of the matters in hand. As you also know, I cannot moderate in these main threads. So I also have no 'pull' with you guys except as a friend-in-science-and-humanity.

If you say that wcelliot is 'denying' as dad1 is 'denying'....it still is a marked difference between them that the science is LESS 'cosmic' ranging in this case.....so that the facts will be more easily ascertained by the reader (like myself) IF the discussion is not clouded by 'mutual personal accusations' and the like. That's all I am saying. I'll leave this thread to you guys for a bit and come back when it calms down a tad! hehehe.

Cheers....and g'night!

RC.
.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (RC+)
GS,

As you know, because I have no admin role, I try not to get drawn into the personal accusations of stalking etc from EITHER side. That way I can concentrate on absorbing the science/logics of the matters in hand. As you also know, I cannot moderate in these main threads. So I also have no 'pull' with you guys except as a friend-in-science-and-humanity.


I know and I hope you do not read anything into my replies. I know of few who would take exception to your questions or posts even if they disagree with them or you.

QUOTE
If you say that wcelliot is 'denying' as dad1 is 'denying'....it still is a marked difference between them that the science is LESS 'cosmic' ranging in this case.....so that the facts will be more easily ascertained by the reader (like myself) IF the discussion is not clouded by 'mutual personal accusations' and the like. That's all I am saying. I'll leave this thread to you guys for a bit and come back when it calms down a tad! hehehe.


I can see your point and yes, dad1 does a better job at blanket denial (and creatively so) but any level of denial is harmful and undesirable.

I normal avoid anything considered personal comments, but after a time of having my posts totally misrepresented and outright lie posted about my posts, I can let the comments go unchallenged.

Calling him a lair may seem in bad taste, and I do cringe at time to see it in other posts, but if the charge is substantiated, as it is here, then so be it.

Sticking to just the scientific facts, again, there is simply no debate. There is no proof to the efficacy of CS unless one buys into claims of the FDA declaring war on CS or spreading disinformation.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If you say that wcelliot is 'denying' as dad1 is 'denying'....it still is a marked difference between them that the science is LESS 'cosmic' ranging in this case.....so that the facts will be more easily ascertained by the reader (like myself) IF the discussion is not clouded by 'mutual personal accusations' and the like. That's all I am saying. I'll leave this thread to you guys for a bit and come back when it calms down a tad! hehehe.


I can see your point and yes, dad1 does a better job at blanket denial (and creatively so) but any level of denial is harmful and undesirable.

I normal avoid anything considered personal comments, but after a time of having my posts totally misrepresented and outright lie posted about my posts, I can let the comments go unchallenged.

Calling him a lair may seem in bad taste, and I do cringe at time to see it in other posts, but if the charge is substantiated, as it is here, then so be it.

Sticking to just the scientific facts, again, there is simply no debate. There is no proof to the efficacy of CS unless one buys into claims of the FDA declaring war on CS or spreading disinformation.

Cheers....and g'night!


Night and I hope all is well.
NEONOM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 21 2008, 06:20 AM)



As you know, because I have no admin role, I try not to get drawn into the personal accusations of stalking etc from EITHER side.

Lying fuckwench. And stop preaching to GeneSplicer.
wcelliott
RC -

Sorry that you've been suckered-into one of GS' "debates".

The science supporting my position I've highlighted in RED because those are quotes from scientific articles, most of which come straight from PhysOrg, so that GS can't assert that the source is disreputable.

You can just scan back through the pages and see the science supporting my position.

You can also see who's relying on logic and who's denying logic - My simple assertion that "silver is silver" (the Identitiy Principle of Logic) is repeatedly challenged, so it's difficult to make a logical point when GS is denying the first principle of logic. His routine counterclaim is that if silver is silver, then oxygen is oxygen and I ought to be able to breathe CO2 because it has oxygen in it. That's where I question his education in chemistry, as he's confusing elements with compounds without realizing the difference, which is usually taught in the first three chapters of high school physics.

You can also see how effective my offer of an olive branch was.

The claims about ionic silver killing all relevant pathogens, including fungi and viruses come from FDA-Approved products' websites. I even provided a link to a Google search on "nanosilver hydrosol" which brings up dozens of sites about "colloidal silver" and "ionic silver". If you visit those sites, you'll see that whatever they're calling their products, they're all describing them the same, as tiny clusters of silver atoms in ultrapure water.

I've also pointed out that even the FDA-Approved products' websites engage in "puffery", which is how commercial products claim that their product is better than other's products, much the same as how every laundry detergent claims to be the best, when that clearly can't be true.

For your benefit, I'll re-post a couple of statements made by FDA-Approved products' websites so that you can judge for yourself whether my claims are "unsupported" as GS claims. (The RED parts are highlighted to make it easier to read, not because I'm angry, but because I know first-hand how boring it is to wade through GS' posts.)

From those lying quacks at Johnson&Johnson:

http://www.mitek.com/home.jhtml?loc=USENG&...9008b9880edaf5c

The strength of silver...

Effective antimicrobial strength against a broad range of microorganisms in vitro¹

Effective against over 150 clinically relevant strains, including resistant strains MRSA, MRSE and VRE¹
Effective against viruses and fungi¹

...
References:
1. Data on file, ETHICON, INC.

*Trademark
© ETHICON, INC. 2008 "


And from those lying quacks at Bristol-Myers Squibb:

"AQUACEL® Ag - Contains the power of ionic silver

The power of ionic silver in AQUACEL® Ag kills a broad spectrum of wound pathogens in the dressing that can cause infection - including Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and other pathogens*2
Prevents colonization in the dressing, killing a broad spectrum of microorganisms that can cause infection2
Provides an effective barrier to bacterial penetration to help reduce infection‡2,8

REFERENCES
1. Harding KG, Price P, Robinson B, Thomas S, Hofman D. Cost and dressing evaluation of hydrofiber and alginate dressings in the management of community-based patients with chronic leg ulceration. Wounds. 2001;13:229-236.
2. Data on File: MAO68, ConvaTec

3. Bowler PG, Duerden BI, Armstrong DG. Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001;14:244-269.

4. Klasen HJ. A historical review of the use of silver in the treatment of burns, II: renewed interest for silver. Burns. 2000;26:131-138.

5. Foster L, Moore P. The application of a cellulose-based fibre dressing in surgical wounds. J Wound Care. 1997;6:469-473.

6. Foster L, Moore P, Clark S. A comparison of hydrofibre and alginate dressings on open acute surgical wounds. J Wound Care. 2000;9:442-445.

7. Bowler PG, Jones SA, Davies BJ, Coyle E. Infection control properties of some wound dressings. J Wound Care. 1999;8:499-502.

8. Data on File: WA129, ConvaTec.

9. Vloemans AFPM, Soesman AM, Kreis RW, Middelkoop E. A newly developed hydrofibre dressing, in the treatment of partial-thickness burns. Burns. 2001;27:167-173.

10. Data on File: A phase II, non-comparative trial of AQUACEL Ag in the management of superficial partial thickness and mid dermal burns, ConvaTec.

11. Data on File: MAO75, ConvaTec.

12. Data on File: MAO67, ConvaTec.


13. Sibbald RG, Williamson D, Orsted HL, et al. Preparing the wound bed — debridement, bacterial balance, and moisture balance. Ostomy Wound Management. 2000;46:14-20,22,24-28,30-35.

14. Data on File: AI111, ConvaTec.

15. Robinson BJ. The use of a hydrofibre dressing in wound management. J Wound Care. 2000;9:32-34.

16. Lydon MJ. The development of AQUACEL® Hydrofibre™ dressings. In: Krieg T, Harding KG, eds. AQUACEL® Hydrofibre™ dressing: the next step in wound dressing technology. Proceedings of a Satellite Symposium at the 6th Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology, Dublin, Ireland, 11-15 September 1997. London, UK: Churchill Communications. 1998:1-3.Churchill Communications. 1998:1-3.

17. Armstrong SH, Ruckley CV. Use of a fibrous dressing in exuding leg ulcers. J Wound Care. 1997;6:322-324.

18.Chen J, Hutchinson J, Waring M, et al. AQUACEL Hydrofiber wound dressing, ConvaTec: Bristol-Myers Squibb; 1998;7.

19. Demling RH, DeSanti L. The role of silver in wound healing. Wounds. 2001;13(suppl)A:5-15.

20. Data on File: MAO72, ConvaTec.

21. Data on File: AI110, ConvaTec.

22. Data on File: WHR12434 WA136, ConvaTec.

23. American Diabetes Association. Consensus development conference on diabetic foot wound care. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:1354-1360.

24. Wheat LJ. Infection and diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1980;3:187-197.

25. Cutting KF. A dedicated follower of fashion? Topical medications and wounds. Br J Nurs. 2000;10(suppl):9-16.

26. Piaggesi A, Baccetti F, Rizzo L, Romanelli M, Navalesi R, Benzi L. Sodium carboxyl-methyl-cellulose dressings in the management of deep ulcerations of diabetic foot. Diabetes Med. 2001;18:320-324.

27. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR, and the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:247-278.

28 . Public Health Laboratory Service. Surveillance of Surgical Site Infection in English Hospitals 1997–1999. London, UK: Central Public Health Laboratory; 1999.

29. Andersson L, Mikkola S, Ewerth S, Akerlund J-E. A new wound dressing method after surgery on pilonidal cysts. In: AQUACEL®: New Dimensions in the treatment of post-surgical wounds. Proceedings of a satellite symposium at the 10th Conference of the European Wound Management Association, Stockholm, Sweden, 18-20 May 2000. Holsworthy, United Kingdom: Medical Communications; 2001:25-28.

30. Garner L. AQUACEL® Hydrofiber® Dressing PPS: saving time and money. Poster presented at: Symposia for Advanced Wound Care; April 2002; Baltimore, MD.

31. Hensley BJ. Dealing with a nurse shortage? AQUACEL Hydrofiber dressing can help. Poster presented at: Symposia for Advanced Wound Care; April 2002; Baltimore, MD.

32. Competitor Product Analysis of Silver Containing Antimicrobial dressings. Report No. WHR12420TA014. Dated February 5, 2002: 1-32. Data on File, ConvaTec.""

And from those quacks at PubMed, A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1515839...0,f1000m,isrctn

"Silver nanoparticles as antimicrobial agent: a case study on E. coli as a model for Gram-negative bacteria.

The antimicrobial activity of silver nanoparticles against E. coli was investigated as a model for Gram-negative bacteria. Bacteriological tests were performed in Luria-Bertani (LB) medium on solid agar plates and in liquid systems supplemented with different concentrations of nanosized silver particles. These particles were shown to be an effective bactericide. Scanning and transmission electron microscopy (SEM and TEM) were used to study the biocidal action of this nanoscale material. The results confirmed that the treated E. coli cells were damaged, showing formation of "pits" in the cell wall of the bacteria, while the silver nanoparticles were found to accumulate in the bacterial membrane. A membrane with such a morphology exhibits a significant increase in permeability, resulting in death of the cell. These nontoxic nanomaterials, which can be prepared in a simple and cost-effective manner, may be suitable for the formulation of new types of bactericidal materials."

And from the quacks at UT-Austin:

http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6

"Interaction of silver nanoparticles with HIV-1

Abstract
The interaction of nanoparticles with biomolecules and microorganisms is an expanding field of research. Within this field, an area that has been largely unexplored is the interaction of metal nanoparticles with viruses. In this work, we demonstrate that silver nanoparticles undergo a size-dependent interaction with HIV-1, with nanoparticles exclusively in the range of 1–10 nm attached to the virus. The regular spatial arrangement of the attached nanoparticles, the center-to-center distance between nanoparticles, and the fact that the exposed sulfur-bearing residues of the glycoprotein knobs would be attractive sites for nanoparticle interaction suggest that silver nanoparticles interact with the HIV-1 virus via preferential binding to the gp120 glycoprotein knobs. Due to this interaction, silver nanoparticles inhibit the virus from binding to host cells, as demonstrated in vitro."

And a picture of what they're talking about:

http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/...re/F3?highres=y

No supporting data, indeed.

Cheers, RC. Always glad to hear the voice of reason.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
Sorry that you've been suckered-into one of GS' "debates".


You really want to put your reputation against mine? I seriously doubt it.

QUOTE
You can also see who's relying on logic and who's denying logic - My simple assertion that "silver is silver" (the Identitiy Principle of Logic) is repeatedly challenged, so it's difficult to make a logical point when GS is denying the first principle of logic.


Again, you try a philosophical law in a material debate. That is not rational nor logical.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You can also see who's relying on logic and who's denying logic - My simple assertion that "silver is silver" (the Identitiy Principle of Logic) is repeatedly challenged, so it's difficult to make a logical point when GS is denying the first principle of logic.


Again, you try a philosophical law in a material debate. That is not rational nor logical.

His routine counterclaim is that if silver is silver, then oxygen is oxygen and I ought to be able to breathe CO2 because it has oxygen in it. That's where I question his education in chemistry, as he's confusing elements with compounds without realizing the difference, which is usually taught in the first three chapters of high school physics.


You mean you posted more insults while not being able to prove your simplistic platitude.

QUOTE
You can also see how effective my offer of an olive branch was.


You mean offering peace after posting an insult to me again and making another lie about what I have stated? Some olive branch.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You can also see how effective my offer of an olive branch was.


You mean offering peace after posting an insult to me again and making another lie about what I have stated? Some olive branch.

No supporting data, indeed.


Exactly. You have to misrepresent legitimate data and research and make claim you cannot back up.

You still will not face the fact that colloidal silver is banned in several countries due to lack of efficacy and toxicity concerns.

And you forgot again to back up your claims about what I stated.

You continue to claim that I threatened your job but cannot cite where. I wonder why?

Keep lying and misrepresenting whatever you think you need to in order to support your faith in the snake oil of colloidal silver.

And don’t forget to label anyone in the forum that disagrees with you idiots and imbeciles as you have done in the past.

You will continue to lose the debate, but after all, you are not here to debate. You are here to SPAM the forum about colloidal silver.
wcelliott
I'll let RC be the judge on who's supporting their position with logic and science, and who's simply arguing for the fun of arguing.
NEONOM
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 21 2008, 06:24 PM)
I'll let RC be the judge on who's supporting their position with logic and science, and who's simply arguing for the fun of arguing.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


And thats why your the lying pretentious cretin, toilet.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
I'll let RC be the judge on who's supporting their position with logic and science, and who's simply arguing for the fun of arguing.


Of course since you have no reputation to speak of and cannot debate with facts.

And what happens if RC doesn't agree with your claims as others here?

Still waiting to see where I threatened your job as you claimed.

You claim you want a civil debate. Fine. Backup your claims with actions.

Let’s go over to the JREF forum.

You can make your claims about colloidal silver and I will counter based on just the facts and let us see what happens.

Unlike this forum, it has very strict rules that are enforced.

In other words, you would not be allowed to make comments like accusing me of working for a pharmaceutical company because I challenge your claims about colloidal silver.

Many of your other action would also not be permitted and, if you engaged in them, will most likely result in you being banned.

So, this means you only can post facts and rational arguments.

And if the facts are on your side, then this challenge should be an easy one for you to meet and succeed in.

So, care to back up your claims of civility and representing the fact or having facts on your side or do I get another excuse?
wcelliott
QUOTE
Still waiting to see where I threatened your job as you claimed.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Still waiting to see where I threatened your job as you claimed.



What exactly does a biotech entrepreneur and aerospace engineer such as yourself do for Pratt & Whitney?

Am I familiar with fair-use policies generally in place with government contractors regarding the use of computers provided, but do they know that you are posting from a traceable (as in back to Pratt & Whitney) and published IP address while preaching and spreading the gospel about colloidal silver?


And how did you just *happen across* this information?

QUOTE
So since you seem not to be that knowledgeable of what I speak, let me explain it to you.

You posted on the forum and both times you did so, the forum posted part of your information. Once was your Road Runner sub-network which I am assuming is your home ISP. The other was the first three octets of what we now know to be your work IP address.

This means that the forum displays “123.456.789.” leaving the last octet blank.

Let me know if you want me to actually post the IP listed.

Now, using rather common knowledge, I looked up that IP address since normally forums that list partial information use ISP information. The entire IP address range based upon that partial IP address, meaning the last octet/number from 2 to 255, resolve to only one company.

Being sleazy would be contacting your job and telling them of your actions while on company time and that your negative actions have been linked to them.

Being sleazy would have been contacting you and threatening to release that information or contacting your company.



Stalking and implicit threat.
GeneSplicer
And again, where did I threaten your job or to contact your company?

Your assumptions are not proof nor is your misinterpretation or misrepresentation of what I have stated.

And again I asked exactly the questions I intended to.

QUOTE
And how did you just *happen across* this information?


And that has been explained.

It is not my fault that the facts are something you are not interested in or cannot or will not understand.

Again, you started making claims typical of many snake oil supporters and hucksters who go from forum to forum posting the same claims over and over.

And as such, I googled your name. The results speak for themselves.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And how did you just *happen across* this information?


And that has been explained.

It is not my fault that the facts are something you are not interested in or cannot or will not understand.

Again, you started making claims typical of many snake oil supporters and hucksters who go from forum to forum posting the same claims over and over.

And as such, I googled your name. The results speak for themselves.

Stalking and implicit threat.


Again, only if you twist and distort what I have stated and only by using your childish rational.

And again, you have admitted to stalking and justified it.

And again, you probably like to think others act in the manner you would and that is reflected in your baseless claims.

And again, did I post the IP address I found? Odd thing that.

But please keep claiming I threatened to contact your company. After a while I’m sure someone here will get tired of your unsupported claims, google your name as I did, find the same information I did and actually contact your company.

If that does happen, I hope for your sake your bragging earlier about your bosses supporting you so much was accurate.

And you failed to address my proposition.

Do you want to go to the JREF forum to post your claims? Again, they do not allow the actions you have taken and you will have to back up your claims with fact.

So, care to back up your claims of civility and representing the facts or having facts on your side or do I get another excuse?
wcelliott
QUOTE
And again, you probably like to think others act in the manner you would and that is reflected in your baseless claims.


Your use of the term "probably" indicates that your claim is "baseless."
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 22 2008, 01:16 AM)

Your use of the term "probably" indicates that your claim is "baseless."

Not at all. Let me explain since, while you claim to know logic so well, you seem unable to apply it.

Your over-reaction at the fact that I discovered your work IP address on a public forum, commented on it and questioned you about it illustrates how you view my actions based upon what your motivations would be if you had taken similar actions.

So, yes WCE, there is a strong probability to be kind.

And again, I do not see your acceptance of my proposal. Why is that?

You have claimed to have the facts on your side time after time and you now claim to want a civil debate.

Why are you then unwilling to got to a forum where the TOS and rules of behavior are enforced?

If the facts are on your side and you do indeed seek a civil debate, then there would be no hesitance on your part.

So, again, care to back up your claims of civility and representing the facts or having facts on your side or do I get another excuse?
wcelliott
QUOTE
If the facts are on your side and you do indeed seek a civil debate


You're the one who considers this a "debate", remember? I'm the one who's found something that's effective against a wide variety of pathogens which have otherwise-ineffective treatments, and sought to share this information with others for *their* benefit, which I've done here already.

I have no interest in debating someone who doesn't recognise the first principle of logic, namely the Identity Principle, and you're the one lacking an understanding of even the first three chapters of high school chemistry.

I don't know what "JREF" is, and I don't care.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (wcelliot+)
You're the one who considers this a "debate", remember?


Yes, but again, your action do not back up what you claim. You have been actively debating and just recently stated that you wanted to debate civilly.

I know you don’t bother to remember what you have posted prior, but this is a major contradiction.

QUOTE
I'm the one who's found something that's effective against a wide variety of pathogens which have otherwise-ineffective treatments, and sought to share this information with others for *their* benefit, which I've done here already.


Yes, you have SPAMMED the forum quite well and have done so in several threads. So if all you are here to do is to SPAM the forum about colloidal silver, then why did you bother to argue when your claims were challenged?

Again, if you had the facts on your side, then anyone reading what you have claimed would agree with you.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I'm the one who's found something that's effective against a wide variety of pathogens which have otherwise-ineffective treatments, and sought to share this information with others for *their* benefit, which I've done here already.


Yes, you have SPAMMED the forum quite well and have done so in several threads. So if all you are here to do is to SPAM the forum about colloidal silver, then why did you bother to argue when your claims were challenged?

Again, if you had the facts on your side, then anyone reading what you have claimed would agree with you.

I have no interest in debating someone who doesn't recognise the first principle of logic,


And yet you have doen so for so many pages.

And you post another lie since I never claimed not to recognize it.

QUOTE
namely the Identity Principle,


And again, you keep calling it he wrong thing. It is call the principle or law of identity.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
namely the Identity Principle,


And again, you keep calling it he wrong thing. It is call the principle or law of identity.

and you're the one lacking an understanding of even the first three chapters of high school chemistry.


Again, according you a person who relies upon simplistic platitudes. And let us not forget the blanket condemnation of those who disagree with you being called idiots and imbeciles by you.

QUOTE
I don't know what "JREF" is, and I don't care.


So you are going to post another excuse and a cop-out. Bravo. You have outdone yourself.

I linked to the JREF. Can you not follow it?

And I’m sure you don’t care because civil debate is not what you are interested in. So your claims that you were is yet another fabrication on your part.

If you were , then going to a forum like the JREF who enforce the rules and do not allow the types of actions you have taken would be the ideal place.

Again, your actions betray your claims.

Odd how such and self-professed intellectual cannot follow a link. The JREF: http://www.randi.org/
Inkaat
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 21 2008, 06:29 PM)
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


And thats why your the lying pretentious cretin, toilet.



'And that's why you're the lying pretentious cretin, toilet.'

Note the apostraphes and the e after the r. Just thought I'd help with your education. You'll know all these things, hopefully, when you grow up.

I'm not laughing at you NOM, please believe me.
TheDoc
QUOTE (Inkaat+Oct 4 2008, 05:30 PM)


'And that's why you're the lying pretentious cretin, toilet.'

Note the apostraphes and the e after the r. Just thought I'd help with your education. You'll know all these things, hopefully, when you grow up.

I'm not laughing at you NOM, please believe me.

Idiot, you're not arguing with NOM. By his own admission, he's never used an alternate account, or even posted as a guest.

You're taking shots at NEONOM, not NOM. Please learn to read.
gmilam
Are you crazy?

$9.95 - not a penny more.
Inkaat
QUOTE (TheDoc+Oct 4 2008, 05:39 PM)
Idiot, you're not arguing with NOM. By his own admission, he's never used an alternate account, or even posted as a guest.

You're taking shots at NEONOM, not NOM. Please learn to read.



'By his own admission'

My goodness, I didn't know that. I do hope I haven't upset you NOM, oh sorry there I go again, I do apologise.
TheDoc
QUOTE (Inkaat+Oct 4 2008, 07:37 PM)


'By his own admission'

My goodness, I didn't know that. I do hope I haven't upset you NOM, oh sorry there I go again, I do apologise.

You fail.
Inkaat


Failed again. Never mind, I'll keep trying. If at first .......

Say hello to your other personlities for me NOM, I admire them all. 'specially the Doc. Funny place to put an apostrophe isn't it, whoever invented that one would certainly deserve some of your criticism; idiot, jerk, tosser. Truly NOM'DOC'NEO, no one on this forum has such a profound command of the English language. I only wish I could afford to visit your school in New Zealand where I could stare at you with incredulous admiration. Eat your heart out William Shapespeare.
hawksecho
The best thing any of us can do is not tolerate those who hate for it's own sake, or their just to flippin stupid. Behind door number two is your opportunity to prove your IQ exceeds that of the wallpaper on your house. I speak to what Bigfairy has written. She seems a very sadly bitter person. I think she has at least half a brain, but to indulge that level of hate poisons the format for all of us. Life is way to f++++ short to hold such bitterness.
GeneSplicer
The Crackpot Index – Alternative Medicine version podcast was posted over the weekend.

In the podcast, I give mention and thanks TheDoc and Occidnetal for their suggestions.

Thanks for the input guys.

Online flash player - http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/podcast%20amir.htm

Link to podcast - http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/shows/am...ckpot_index.mp3
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.