The Crackpot Index

GeneSplicer

5th September 2008 - 03:38 AM

I'm sure most are already familiar with the crackpot list.

I figure that physics should not be the only discipline such a list exists for.

With that in mind, I am building a new crackpot list. This one will be for anyone supporting alternative medicine.

I plan on podcasting this list eventually, but would like to know if I missed anything.

Should a new list be created for other categories as well?

For what is it worth, enjoy.

The Crackpot Index – Alternative Medicine Version
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to medicine:
By Gene S. of The Shallow Gene Pool (http://www.theshallowgenepool.com)

A -5 point starting credit. Any positive rating indicates level of crackpot.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Big Pharma", "The Cancer Industry", "The HIV Industry" or claims that imply such.
10 points for each claim that modern medicine is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for pointing out that you belong to selective organizations whose membership is determined by IQ.
10 points for claiming that some form of alternative medicine cured you when conventional medical treatment failed. (10 more for emphasizing that you cured it on your own.)
10 points for claiming you have a revolutionary cure for a disease or diseases but giving no concrete, testable or verifiable sources of a legitimate nature.
10 points for claiming that any legitimate medical treatment with a similar sounding name, containing terms similar or procedures similar to the alternative medicine you support is support for the claims of your alternative medicine.
10 points for claiming to be more an authority in medicine than anyone questioning your claims even though you are not a doctor or similarly skilled physician.
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift" or of such worth that it has been stolen from you by others. (10 more points if they became millionaires from such a theft. )
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I am working for “Big Pharma”.)
20 points for claiming that the FDA has declared “war” on your particular form of alternative medicine. (10 more point for also claiming the FDA is actively spreading “disinformation” about your particular form of alternative medicine.)
20 points for every use of science fiction works, medical myths or medically erroneous claims as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming a prominent person in the medical or biotech fields or research who supports your claims. (10 more if the same person is claimed by you to have once had their researched stopped by the FDA, AMA, Big Pharma, etc.)
20 points for talking about how great your favorite alternative medicine is, but never actually supporting it by verifiable research form a legitimate source.
30 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
30 points for claiming that the "medical establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your particular form of alternative medicine from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for claiming that when your particular form of alternative medicine is finally appreciated, present-day medicine, pharmaceutical, FDA, etc will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which doctors, scientists, etc who mocked your claims or people who questioned your claims will be forced to recant.)
50 points for going to research sites or support site for diseases and chronic ailments and suggesting people so afflicted should use a certain type of alternative medicine. (10 more if it is a form of alternative medicine that you yourself use).

occidental

5th September 2008 - 04:00 AM

How about 20 points for causing more harm? 50 if you kill someone?

GeneSplicer

5th September 2008 - 05:12 AM

Excellent addition. And I will credit you with that entry (entries) when it goes to a podcast.

NEONOM

5th September 2008 - 09:38 AM

How about 100 points just for being Lui DiMartino?

eyeque

5th September 2008 - 09:43 AM

QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 5 2008, 09:38 AM)

How about 100 points just for being Lui DiMartino?

redthird!

Masked Marauder

5th September 2008 - 05:11 PM

ah HA! alternative treatments for cancer... Interesting topic, and I have to toss in my 2.35 cents plus tax so that you can buy that cup of special joe.

My first wife died from pancreatic cancer, 163 days from diagnosis to death. She worked in a hospital and even though her oncologist told her it wouldn't do any good, she chose the standard Gemzar and something else palliative treatment for pc. Based on results, it didn't do much.

My mom died from small cell lung cancer, perhaps the result of smoking for 40 years. She chose chemotherapy, and it bought her about 3 years, based on results. the chemotherapy did what it is designed to do, attack the tumor. She died anyhow.

My mother in law died from some form of lung cancer, when diagnosed (roughly) she chose to do nothing. She ended up starving to death, as the tumor closed off her esophagus and she could no longer get anything down..

My current wife was diagnosed with stage 3a breast cancer and underwent a mastectomy. She chose to treat the rest with holistic naturopathic methods. She changed her diet to Vegan, chose foods and supplements that have a cancer fighting capability, has created an environment in her body that is caustic to cancer, and as of today, 2 years later, still clear of cancer. Healthier than she has ever been in her life.

The truth about chemotherapy is that it is incredibly toxic to the body. That is the reason they do a heart test to see if your heart can survive the punishment that chemo puts out. often, the patient ends up dying from "complications of cancer" which is doctor speak for the chemotherapy side effects killed them. A prime example of that is Randy Pausch, the professor that was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He died from heart failure due to the chemotherapy. It is not unusual. there is also kidney failure, heart failure, stroke, liver failure, bleed outs, and so on..

The issues with chemotherapy is that it does not specifically attack cancer cells, it attacks any fast growing cell, so hair, finger nails and so on tend to fall out. It also destroys the immune system, and it often does not recover fully. For over 20 years I have heard of "new things on the horizon" but they always seem to peter out. Works well on rats, tends to malfunction on people.

Radiation, in my opinion, is incredibly bad. you are, in a sense, microwaving the flesh. When my wife was told she needed radiation, they told her there was a chance they might "nick" the lung, as they cannot curve radiation treatments, and her breast was removed to the chest wall. If they nick the lung, it can and usually does create a permanent case of pneumonia or pneumonia like symptoms. if they had to radiate the other breast, they would "do their best" not to damage the heart, but in most cases, it is damaged. Again, cannot curve the shot. My sister in law had breast cancer and did chemo and radiation. you can see the places on her neck where the radiation contacted the skin. looks leathery in those areas only. She also has lost strength in her chest, and her heart has to be monitored periodically for damage there.

Now, my point to that entire rant is this. All of those treatments have been peer reviewed, and FDA approved. and their statistics are miserable at the very best. and if you take apart the statistics, you quickly discover that after the magical "5 year" time frame, those who chose those treatments often die from side effects later on... and they count those that die of side effects as "successful" as they did NOT die from cancer.

So, from all that, I would feel as though I were doing myself a disservice to engage these "scientifically backed treatments" prior to going the holistic naturopathic route first. which are unproven... except that they have real world results, such as my wife, versus laboratory results from the companies selling the drugs.

Remember too, that there is no money in holistic or naturopathic treatments. So there is no study, nor any company inclined to do so.

Comments?

MM

GeneSplicer

5th September 2008 - 10:45 PM

MM,

To your claim that there is not money in holistic naturopathy, what exactly are you referring to?

The reason I ask is due to the massive research effort undertaken into possible cancer treatments or cures from herbal remedies and the like.

Out of such investigation(s), a few compounds showed to be promising. Out of that only one or two proved viable in humans.

And you are right to point out how testing of treatment that prove viable in animals do not always work in humans.

If anything of alternative medicine is viable and effective, it should be testable and repeatable.

If it cannot stand up to such scrutiny, then you have to either conclude that they are ineffective or that science is wrong.

I would also disagree with the claim that there is no money in holistic or naturopathic treatments. I cited before an article from the 90’s that stated the AM industry was a multi-billion dollar industry.

Masked Marauder

6th September 2008 - 12:49 AM

QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Sep 5 2008, 10:45 PM)

MM,

To your claim that there is not money in holistic naturopathy, what exactly are you referring to?

The reason I ask is due to the massive research effort undertaken into possible cancer treatments or cures from herbal remedies and the like.

Out of such investigation(s), a few compounds showed to be promising. Out of that only one or two proved viable in humans.

And you are right to point out how testing of treatment that prove viable in animals do not always work in humans.

If anything of alternative medicine is viable and effective, it should be testable and repeatable.

If it cannot stand up to such scrutiny, then you have to either conclude that they are ineffective or that science is wrong.

I would also disagree with the claim that there is no money in holistic or naturopathic treatments. I cited before an article from the 90’s that stated the AM industry was a multi-billion dollar industry.

Lets go with a specific drug I know something about.

Tamoxifen. Used to block estrogen positive cancer cells from binding at a molecular level to estrogen hormones, then float through the body and attach the cancer cell to another area, called metastasis.

According to our medical oncologists, Tamoxifen has a 50% chance of being effective in PR-positive breast cancer. With that percentage, pretty much a no-brainer... until you dig a bit. Tamoxifen is usually prescribed for 5 years then discontinued after that, assuming that cancer is no longer in the womans system. The downside is that it causes stroke, heart failure, endrometrial cancer, clots and the list goes on. Pretty nasty stuff. and here is the kicker. It will buy you 50% of 1%. NOT 50% of 100%. I was absolutely floored. (I have the data on that if you want it)

We did some research, and based on a Harvard study, I3C is 90% effective of 100%. and it has zero side effects. It is nothing more than an concentration of certain cruciferous indoles. over the counter, costs about 10.00 or so a month.

But, it is over the counter... no real money to be made. Tamoxifen is not, and it is rather spendy. for 5 years.

The oncologist had not heard of it. We took the write up from Harvard in and it went poof. Sooo. if you want the studies and the links, kick me an email and happy to share...

Just a single example of our research.

GeneSplicer

6th September 2008 - 01:28 AM

I would be interested in the links, but you are making my point for me.

You are talking about research and studies. I’m assuming that this was done by legitimate researchers since you mentioned a Harvard study.

When I talk about alternative medicine, I am speaking about irrational pseudoscientific claptrap such as homeopathy or similar junk science.

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

Even the sound notion of treating and addressing a person’s emotional state has been taken to ridiculous levels.

One prime example was an online debate I was part of where a person who identified themselves as a certified homeopath claimed that holistic medicine would simply not work on atheists since most atheists deny the existence of a soul and that was a crucial part of holistic medicine.

Masked Marauder

6th September 2008 - 02:20 AM

QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Sep 6 2008, 01:28 AM)

I would be interested in the links, but you are making my point for me.

You are talking about research and studies. I’m assuming that this was done by legitimate researchers since you mentioned a Harvard study.

When I talk about alternative medicine, I am speaking about irrational pseudoscientific claptrap such as homeopathy or similar junk science.

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

Even the sound notion of treating and addressing a person’s emotional state has been taken to ridiculous levels.

One prime example was an online debate I was part of where a person who identified themselves as a certified homeopath claimed that holistic medicine would simply not work on atheists since most atheists deny the existence of a soul and that was a crucial part of holistic medicine.

Nope, not part of my world, science and common sense, and a zen type balance, but atheists not being helped due to their lack of belief in a soul?

Sounds like a fruitcake to me...

And yes, the studies were completed by Georgetown, Harvard, and a few other universities. Seems I3C helps with prostrate cancer as well.

There is something to be said for a persons mental state while dealing with cancer, as stress dumps an incredible amount of toxins into the system. So finding a balance, and a sense of well being is paramount to keeping the immune system at an optimum level.

But atheism? weird people out there

Thanks Genesplicer hope all is well.

GeneSplicer

6th September 2008 - 03:08 AM

I read about I3C a while ago when it was mentioned to be a factor in the prevention of prostate cancer and the study of people who did not have a high incidence of it.

Of course, now I also read about another study, repetitive I think, that regular masturbation or sexual intercourse also lowers the risk.

Thanks for the replies.

Grumpy

11th September 2008 - 01:28 PM

Bonehead is running in the 200+ range. Wonder what his numerology says that number means???

duh! is off the chart. A guppy out of his bowl.

zerkoff is out in space somewhere. They don't have water there, which explains the SMELL emanating from his posts.

coberst, phillip007, and many others have proven the many universe theory, because it is obvious they cannot be living in ours.

Grumpy

Boneidol

11th September 2008 - 01:35 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 11 2008, 01:28 PM)

Bonehead is running in the 200+ range. Wonder what his numerology says that number means???

duh! is off the chart. A guppy out of his bowl.

zerkoff is out in space somewhere. They don't have water there, which explains the SMELL emanating from his posts.

coberst, phillip007, and many others have proven the many universe theory, because it is obvious they cannot be living in ours.

Grumpy

Well if you want statistics, there are about 30 people I know that think you're a nasty little @sshole, and judging by your feedback here, no more than 8 or 9 that cheerlead you. Facts are facts dear boy. And I wager that the vast majority of humans would regard you in a negative light.

Also, you don't get the judge chair, because judges need to scrutinize with a toothpick before casting judgment.

And lastly, statistically speaking I am far more used to people being positive toward me, than the negative childishness from the cookie motley crew here.

There's your facts sunshine. Be thankful the world won't get to know who the dickwad is that calls himself Grumpy.

Grumpy

11th September 2008 - 01:41 PM

bonehead

Your confusion about numbers extends beyond your book. For you, comparing feedback scores is a bad way to go. If we add up the negs you have received with all of your sockpuppets, the number reaches spectacular depths, you might want to consider that people are trying to tell you something, clown.

Grumpy

MjolnirPants

11th September 2008 - 01:43 PM

QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 11 2008, 01:35 PM)

Well if you want statistics, there are about 30 people I know that think you're a nasty little @sshole, and judging by your feedback here, no more than 8 or 9 that cheerlead you.

64 unique positives somehow equates to 8 or 9 people possing him?

QUOTE

Facts are facts dear boy.

Facts are facts, dear boy.

Boneidol

11th September 2008 - 01:43 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 11 2008, 01:41 PM)

bonehead

Your confusion about numbers extends beyond your book. For you, comparing feedback scores is a bad way to go. If we add up the negs you have received with all of your sockpuppets, the number reaches spectacular depths, you might want to consider that people are trying to tell you something, clown.

Grumpy

Feedback scores are mostly all upside down here Grumpy. Sorry you're so dilluded about that. You got a taste of the real world over at BFN, and the real world to you to F O.

Grumpy

11th September 2008 - 01:50 PM

bonehead

QUOTE

the real world over at BFN

Oh...HOHOHOHOHO...HEHEHEHE...STOP IT, MY SIDE IS HURTING...DAMN, NOW THAT'S FUNNY...WHAT A MAROOON!!!

Grumpy

wcelliott

11th September 2008 - 07:32 PM

Hi, Grumpy, long time no see.

You should be aware that "gene-splicer" started this thread because he accused me of being a "CTer" when I posted a theory on how nanosilver hydrosol could be used to treat antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA and potentially treat viruses as well.

From my post on "Malaria Cure":

From:

http://www.physorg.com/news134989786.html

"Identifying and disrupting key elements of malaria's 'sticky sack' adhesion strategy

The malaria parasite is injected into humans by an infected mosquito. The parasites then infect healthy red blood cells, transforming them into sticky sacks containing up to thirty-two new daughter parasites. The hijacked red blood cells stick to blood vessel walls, thereby avoiding being flushed through the spleen and being destroyed there by the body's immune system. ...

This discovery has greatly enhanced our understanding of how the parasite commandeers the red blood cell for its own survival and avoids our immune defences. It also suggests that a drug that inactivates an essential adhesion protein would be an effective anti-malarial.

All currently available malaria drugs attempt to disrupt the metabolism or biological function of the parasite. Unfortunately, malaria parasites are evolving resistance to such drugs, suggesting that quite a different strategy may be required – hence the importance of targeting the "stickiness factors." The inability of the parasite to prevent its transport to the human spleen would lead to the parasite's natural destruction.

And from:

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."

Draw your own conclusions."

My motivations are illuminated in my signature, below. I'm hoping that new scientific research supporting potential cures for otherwise incurable diseases . Nanosilver hydrosol is commonly available as "colloidal silver", which has worked on everything I've tried it on, and a couple problems I didn't even know I had.

"Gene-splicer"'s motivations are much murkier, as it seems he's only interested in "winning the debate". Even though that includes misleading people about the availability of alternatives to the no-win treatments that don't work.

Net effect, I'm trying to save peoples' lives, he's trying to stop me.

Grumpy

11th September 2008 - 08:01 PM

wcelliott

Unless and until these drugs pass efficacy testing, I too am HIGHLY skeptical of these claims. If they did what you claim they do it would be front page news, not ad copy. Gene Splicer has a good head on his shoulders for these things. Knowing him, I would be hugely more likely to trust his judgement.

Grumpy

GeneSplicer

11th September 2008 - 09:53 PM

Wow. I see the coward is still stalking me. And still a hypocrite to boot after all your crying foul over negative feedback.

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

TheDoc is one of Genesplicer's sockpuppets.

Care to back up that claim you left in my feedback with something other than your hollow word and bruised juvenile ego or are you going to cower away yet again?

Amazing how someone who claims to be possessive of such an intellect keep violating his own principles and keep making claims based upon his irrational and uncontrolled emotions and ego.

Also sad how you have to keep distorting legitimate research as support for your colloidal silver snake oil.

Rather than to continue to act like a petulant child, why not try to back up your claims?

QUOTE

You should be aware that "gene-splicer" started this thread because he accused me of being a "CTer" when I posted a theory on how nanosilver hydrosol could be used to treat antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA and potentially treat viruses as well.

Wow. Still posting outright lies I see.

To correct you again, I challenged your claim that any research mentioning the term silver was proof of your claims about colloidal silver.

You still cannot back up those claims and still have to lie about legitimate research not to mention what was being argued about.

And, it still stands that you are a CTer due to your claims regarding the cancer/HIV industry.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

You should be aware that "gene-splicer" started this thread because he accused me of being a "CTer" when I posted a theory on how nanosilver hydrosol could be used to treat antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA and potentially treat viruses as well.

Wow. Still posting outright lies I see.

To correct you again, I challenged your claim that any research mentioning the term silver was proof of your claims about colloidal silver.

You still cannot back up those claims and still have to lie about legitimate research not to mention what was being argued about.

And, it still stands that you are a CTer due to your claims regarding the cancer/HIV industry.

My motivations are illuminated in my signature, below. I'm hoping that new scientific research supporting potential cures for otherwise incurable diseases . Nanosilver hydrosol is commonly available as "colloidal silver", which has worked on everything I've tried it on, and a couple problems I didn't even know I had.

Another outright lie. NSH is not the same as CS. You can keep claiming this all you like, but you have nothing but your hollow word to back it up.

QUOTE

"Gene-splicer"'s motivations are much murkier, as it seems he's only interested in "winning the debate".

No, again, you continue to lie. You keep making claims you cannot back up. You might think it is acceptable to be able to post your hollow claims everywhere, but anyone of a rational mindset will not.

And when challenged, rather than prove you claims wrong, you rally against the person daring to question your claims.

Odd how a genius as you claim to be cant back up their claims if they were true.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"Gene-splicer"'s motivations are much murkier, as it seems he's only interested in "winning the debate".

No, again, you continue to lie. You keep making claims you cannot back up. You might think it is acceptable to be able to post your hollow claims everywhere, but anyone of a rational mindset will not.

And when challenged, rather than prove you claims wrong, you rally against the person daring to question your claims.

Odd how a genius as you claim to be cant back up their claims if they were true.

Even though that includes misleading people about the availability of alternatives to the no-win treatments that don't work.

And more lies. Care to cite proof of what I have posted or is this another instance where you claimed I stated something but cannot show where?

QUOTE

Net effect, I'm trying to save peoples' lives, he's trying to stop me.

And yet another lie. Your CS snake oil has so far not proven to be a cure for anything. You did have the audacity to actually go to the support forum for an auto-immune disease and suggest they try your CS snake oil.

Then there is your claim to have contacted the W.H.O. and other organizations begging them to use CS.

If you were really interested in saving people’s lives, how about you petition all of the alternative medicine companies making billions into supporting DCA research?

And how exactly is challenging your hollow claims preventing you from "saving lives"?

So, stop lying, stop lying about me, back up your claims, act like a man with a modicum of character rather than a petulant child and try to follow your own posts and not be a hypocrite.

Or you can keep stalking me, lying and leaving claims you cannot backup.

In any regard, keep posting. The more you do, the more hits regarding your name and your disturbing activities will be found.

MjolnirPants

11th September 2008 - 10:21 PM

Therapeutic Goods Administration - Regulation of colloidal silver and related products

QUOTE

Following an investigation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the CMEC recommended that the NDPSC be advised that there are no current legitimate uses of colloidal silver and that the Surveillance Section of the TGA be requested to investigate the illegal availability of colloidal silver products because of concerns about their significant toxicity. The reasons for the recommendation were that:

there is little evidence to support therapeutic claims made for colloidal silver products;
the risk to consumers of silver toxicity outweighs the value of trying an unsubstantiated treatment, and bacterial resistance to silver can occur; and
efforts should be made to curb the illegal availability of colloidal silver products, which is a significant public health issue.

wcelliott

12th September 2008 - 12:02 AM

From those 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 "

Describing an FDA-Approved product.

From the quacks at Bristol-Myers Squib:

http://www.aquacelag.com/us/burns/start.htm

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

...

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."

From PubMed, A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
and the National Institutes of Health:

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

Sondi I, Salopek-Sondi B.

Center for Marine and Environmental Research, Ruder Bosković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia. sondi@irb.hr

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.[B] 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.[/B]"

From those quacks at Silverlon:

http://www.silverlon.com/index.htm

Silverlon®’s outstanding benefits include:
Bactericidal to all clinically relevant bacteria and fungi
Reported reduction in healing time

Unmatched in design and durability, Silverlon®’s comfortable, flexible fabric [B]delivers more safe, pure ionic silver to the wound site longer than other silver-impregnated products on the market. Silver that is evenly distributed and continually active. Silverlon® Dressings have been shown to be an effective treatment against stubborn MRSA Infections. Silverlon® delivers a speedy and sustained kill against MRSA Bacteria. [/B]...
All of the Silverlon® Wound Care, Burn Care, and Surgical Care Products
listed on this website are FDA Cleared.

It should be noted that MRSA kills more Americans than AIDS.

No research, indeed.

Need I continue?

GeneSplicer

12th September 2008 - 01:10 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

No research, indeed.

Need I continue?

Again and again and again, you continue to misrepresent legitimate research as supporting colloidal silver and your claims about CS.

Why do you have to resort to such tactics over and over? Simply due to the fact that your claims about CS are not backed by any research.

It is a shame that intellectual honesty does not go hand in hand with intellect.

And then we have your hypocrisy over multiple negative feedbacks and stalking.

Oh, and I don't see anything that backed up your claim that TheDoc is a sockpuppet account of mine.

Did you forget to post it?

Did you also forget to post where I stated what you claimed I did?

Your inability to back up such claims with proof from this forum alone is embarrassing.

TheDoc

12th September 2008 - 02:18 AM

QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)

Oh, and I don't see anything that backed up your claim that TheDoc is a sockpuppet account of mine.

I suggest an addition to the index: 30 points for claiming that if you agree with someone else you're a sockpuppet.

wcelliott

12th September 2008 - 02:51 AM

More?

From:

http://www.physorg.com/new s121351832.html

"Grapefruit compound may help combat hepatitis C infection
A compound that naturally occurs in grapefruit and other citrus fruits may be able to block the secretion of hepatitis C virus (HCV) from infected cells, a process required to maintain chronic infection. A team of researchers from the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Engineering in Medicine (MGH-CEM) report that HCV is bound to very low-density lipoprotein (vLDL, a so-called “bad” cholesterol) when it is secreted from liver cells and that the viral secretion required to pass infection to other cells may be blocked by the common flavonoid naringenin.
...
“These results suggest that lipid-lowering drugs, as well as supplements, such as naringenin, may be combined with traditional antiviral therapies to reduce or even eliminate HCV from infected patients”

Grapefruit-seed extract, known to be rich in flavenoids, is one of those "alternative medicines" that you can buy from the internet. Google it if you doubt me.

And from an FDA-Approved product's website:

http://www.jnj.se/hom e.jhtml?loc=USENG&page=viewContent&contentId=09008b9881294ba2&p arentId=09008b9880edaf5c
"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"

Note: They say "VIRUSES". Plural, as in more than one. Like, perhaps, a whole lot of them. (Or maybe all of them. Who can say?)

And we already know that "nanosilver particles" are effective against the HIV-1 virus:

http://www.jnanobio technology.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."

For the reading-impaired, here's a link to pictures of the AIDS virus, before and after exposure to nanosilver hydrosol:

http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6/figure/F3

The reason I don't cite a dozen or so Colloidal Silver websites stating concisely that CS is simply silver nanoparticles in ultrapure (deionized) water, period, is that if I cite even one website that sells CS, then you'll accuse me of trying to *sell* it, and since there's no way to disprove a negative, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I started quoting CS-selling sites, where they say exactly, precisely, that CS is nanosilver particles, ideally in the range of 1 to 10 nanometers, just like the HIV-1 study, above, said is most-effective at attaching to the virus' binding sites, in pure water. No third ingredient. Many of those sites use the term "colloidal silver" and "ionic silver" and "nanosilver hydrosol" interchangeably, because they are interchangeable terms describing basically the same thing. Nobody's nanosilver particles are so well-controlled that they're all within a tight range of sizes, and that's probably for the best (for the consumers). In HIV-1, the ideal range seems to be 1 to 10 nanometers, in bacteria, probably larger nanoparticle sizes would be better. With smaller viruses than HIV-1, maybe smaller nanoparticles of silver might be better. But anyone here who is honestly interested in this topic, instead of just trolling, can do a Google search on "nanosilver hydrosol" and find "Colloidal Silver" and "Ionic Silver" in the same search results list. Go for it.

As for TheDoc being Genesplicer's sockpuppet, it seems very likely to me to be true, as when I started posting neg's on Genesplicer for his dishonest "debate" tactics, he accused me of being a hypocrite, as I'd earlier stated that the feedback system was being abused. (Look at my feedback if you want to see examples.) BY A HUGE COINCIDENCE, TheDoc, who'd NEVER posted an opinion on this topic before, would post a Neg on *my* feedback every time I posted a Neg on Genesplicer's, and post a Pos on Genesplicer's while he was at it. Funny, but if you look at his feedback, you'll see that I'm not the first person to accuse him of having multiple sockpuppets, all of whom post positives for each other whenever one gets a Neg.

So, "TheDoc", have you any differing opinions than "GeneSplicer"?

Also, it was established in a prior thread that "GeneSplicer" doesn't actually have a job as a scientist of any sort, certainly not splicing genes. So what are you a "doctor" of, TheDoc?

MjolnirPants

12th September 2008 - 03:09 AM

wcelliot: If these sources support your claims, then you should have no difficulty providing us with the exact quote which claims that oral ingestion of colloidal silver accomplishes everything these ads (and they are indeed advertisements, not published papers) claim to accomplish. I'd also like to see some evidence that nanosilver hydrosol and colloidal silver are the same thing (they're not, but hey), some evidence that the particles of silver commonly found in colloidal silver are truly nano-particles (they're not, but hey) and finally, some evidence that the various regulatory bodies around the world who've failed to approve colloidal silver for medical use were motivated by some factor other than the evidence.

GeneSplicer

12th September 2008 - 03:27 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

More?

You mean more misrepresentations and distortions form you? Post all you like, it still doesn’t change the fact that what you post does not support yours claims about colloidal silver.

So, have any research forma legitimate site that supports your claims for colloidal silver?

And still no links to support what you claimed I have stated.

And still no explanation about your hypocrisy regarding feedback abuse and stalking.

QUOTE

The reason I don't cite a dozen or so Colloidal Silver websites stating concisely that CS is simply silver nanoparticles in ultrapure (deionized) water, period, is that if I cite even one website that sells CS, then you'll accuse me of trying to *sell* it,

Total lie. You have never been able to post any support for your claim that nanosilver is simple CS other than your own claim.

Then there is the fact that so many sites selling silver snake oil solutions on-line also disagree with your claims.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The reason I don't cite a dozen or so Colloidal Silver websites stating concisely that CS is simply silver nanoparticles in ultrapure (deionized) water, period, is that if I cite even one website that sells CS, then you'll accuse me of trying to *sell* it,

Total lie. You have never been able to post any support for your claim that nanosilver is simple CS other than your own claim.

Then there is the fact that so many sites selling silver snake oil solutions on-line also disagree with your claims.

and since there's no way to disprove a negative, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I started quoting CS-selling sites, where they say exactly, precisely, that CS is nanosilver particles, ideally in the range of 1 to 10 nanometers, just like the HIV-1 study, above, said is most-effective at attaching to the virus' binding sites, in pure water.

And more lies. You cannot create nanoparticles by using silver wire, electricity and water.

QUOTE

No third ingredient. Many of those sites use the term "colloidal silver" and "ionic silver" and "nanosilver hydrosol" interchangeably, because they are interchangeable terms describing basically the same thing.

Again, according to your hollow claims.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

No third ingredient. Many of those sites use the term "colloidal silver" and "ionic silver" and "nanosilver hydrosol" interchangeably, because they are interchangeable terms describing basically the same thing.

Again, according to your hollow claims.

Nobody's nanosilver particles are so well-controlled that they're all within a tight range of sizes, and that's probably for the best (for the consumers).

Again, according to your claims.

QUOTE

In HIV-1, the ideal range seems to be 1 to 10 nanometers, in bacteria, probably larger nanoparticle sizes would be better. With smaller viruses than HIV-1, maybe smaller nanoparticles of silver might be better. But anyone here who is honestly interested in this topic, instead of just trolling, can do a Google search on "nanosilver hydrosol" and find "Colloidal Silver" and "Ionic Silver" in the same search results list. Go for it.

Yes, tell everyone to go look it up since you cannot back up your claims, yet again.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

In HIV-1, the ideal range seems to be 1 to 10 nanometers, in bacteria, probably larger nanoparticle sizes would be better. With smaller viruses than HIV-1, maybe smaller nanoparticles of silver might be better. But anyone here who is honestly interested in this topic, instead of just trolling, can do a Google search on "nanosilver hydrosol" and find "Colloidal Silver" and "Ionic Silver" in the same search results list. Go for it.

Yes, tell everyone to go look it up since you cannot back up your claims, yet again.

As for TheDoc being Genesplicer's sockpuppet, it seems very likely to me to be true,

Again, you have not proof, just your hollow opinion.

QUOTE

as when I started posting neg's on Genesplicer for his dishonest "debate" tactics, he accused me of being a hypocrite, as I'd earlier stated that the feedback system was being abused.

And you are a hypocrite after crying foul about negatives in general, then you post multiple negatives and continue to stalk me and post more negatives.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

as when I started posting neg's on Genesplicer for his dishonest "debate" tactics, he accused me of being a hypocrite, as I'd earlier stated that the feedback system was being abused.

And you are a hypocrite after crying foul about negatives in general, then you post multiple negatives and continue to stalk me and post more negatives.

(Look at my feedback if you want to see examples.) BY A HUGE COINCIDENCE, TheDoc, who'd NEVER posted an opinion on this topic before, would post a Neg on *my* feedback every time I posted a Neg on Genesplicer's,

Well, you did try to play up to the audience rather than debate honestly. Everyone reading who has an account can and will leave feedback as they see fit. Your assumption is just laughable.

QUOTE

and post a Pos on Genesplicer's while he was at it. Funny, but if you look at his feedback, you'll see that I'm not the first person to accuse him of having multiple sockpuppets, all of whom post positives for each other whenever one gets a Neg.

Yes, and most of those who try to claim that I have multiple accounts only do so after they are unable to debate me, start leaving negatives for me and others who have been reading the debate leave negatives for that person.

So, it appears you made and continue to make claims of fact based upon nothing. Odd thing that.

And I’m still waiting for you to cite where I have posted what you claimed I have. The last few times you made such claims you were either unable to back them up or were proven to be in error.

TheDoc

12th September 2008 - 04:26 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

As for TheDoc being Genesplicer's sockpuppet, it seems very likely to me to be true

Seems very likely, yeah. 'Cept you've got no proof...

QUOTE

BY A HUGE COINCIDENCE, TheDoc, who'd NEVER posted an opinion on this topic before, would post a Neg on *my* feedback every time I posted a Neg on

Because I've seen your dishonest behavior on the Stonehenge thread. When I came across GeneSplicer calling you a liar and supporting that claim in another thread, I gave you a negative. You continued to display the same behavior, so I gave you more negatives.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

BY A HUGE COINCIDENCE, TheDoc, who'd NEVER posted an opinion on this topic before, would post a Neg on *my* feedback every time I posted a Neg on

Because I've seen your dishonest behavior on the Stonehenge thread. When I came across GeneSplicer calling you a liar and supporting that claim in another thread, I gave you a negative. You continued to display the same behavior, so I gave you more negatives.

and post a Pos on Genesplicer's while he was at it.

Going through GeneSplicer's feedback, one can see that you have given him four negatives since July 21, with three of my positives squeezed in between. What you convienently forget to mention is that my first positive to GeneSplicer during that period came nine days after your negative, and cited a post that had nothing to do with your discussions with him. I only began to touch on your discussions with him with my second positive.

QUOTE

Funny, but if you look at his feedback, you'll see that I'm not the first person to accuse him of having multiple sockpuppets

Funny, but if you look at his feedback, you'll also find that kaneda's the only one to have done so before you. And that accusation in itself is negligible because kaneda was a paranoid hypocrite.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Funny, but if you look at his feedback, you'll see that I'm not the first person to accuse him of having multiple sockpuppets

Funny, but if you look at his feedback, you'll also find that kaneda's the only one to have done so before you. And that accusation in itself is negligible because kaneda was a paranoid hypocrite.

So, "TheDoc", have you any differing opinions than "GeneSplicer"?

I think you display deliberately dishonest behavior whenever someone challenges your claims. You did it to MjolnirPants, you're doing it to GeneSplicer and you're doing it to me.

QUOTE

Also, it was established in a prior thread that "GeneSplicer" doesn't actually have a job as a scientist of any sort, certainly not splicing genes.

So $&#%-ing what? Do you think that because someone's name is GeneSplicer, they must have an occupation in gene splicing?

In that case, I'm formally changing my user ID to "Stephen Hawking, PhD".

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Also, it was established in a prior thread that "GeneSplicer" doesn't actually have a job as a scientist of any sort, certainly not splicing genes.

So $&#%-ing what? Do you think that because someone's name is GeneSplicer, they must have an occupation in gene splicing?

In that case, I'm formally changing my user ID to "Stephen Hawking, PhD".

So what are you a "doctor" of, TheDoc?

Time travel.

MjolnirPants

12th September 2008 - 12:35 PM

QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Sep 12 2008, 03:27 AM)

QUOTE

So what are you a "doctor" of, TheDoc?

Time travel.

I thought you were a Doctor of Time And Relative Dimensions In Space?

TheDoc

12th September 2008 - 02:40 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 12 2008, 12:35 PM)

I thought you were a Doctor of Time And Relative Dimensions In Space?

10 points.

wcelliott

13th September 2008 - 02:14 AM

From "TheDoc":

QUOTE

So $&#%-ing what? Do you think that because someone's name is GeneSplicer, they must have an occupation in gene splicing?

Exactly the same "defense" that "gene-splicer" used, that it wasn't *his* fault that *I* was misled by the name "gene-splicer" into thinking that perhaps his occupation involved *splicing genes*.

Anybody else here think that was an unreasonable assumption to make?

Anybody else here think that this pretty much *clinches* my position that Genesplicer and TheDoc are the same guy?

I gave "Genesplicer" negs four weeks in a row because for four weeks in a row, he continued to use the same dishonest tactics in his "debate" with me about the value of CS in fighting otherwise-untreatable pathogens, many of which are *lethal*. This was never a debate, I'm not interested in scoring points, I'm here to let people know that if they've got MRSA or AIDS or malaria or Hepatitis C, that there's scientific proof that "nanosilver hydrosol" is available to them that has both anecdotal evidence *AND* scientific support that there's a more-viable alternate treatment than is available to them through conventional therapy. I'm trying to save peoples' lives, here, and "Genesplicer" is just playing dishonest word-games because his own ego won't let him stop trying to prove that *he's* smarter than I am.

There was a report on research into what makes a person a genius, published recently here on PhysOrg - Bottom line: Devoting more time learning than the average person is willing to spend. If you want to be smarter than me, GS/TheDoc, you needed to start a long, long time ago. My Masters in Electrical Engineering didn't come in the mail. (And for the record, I'm not now nor ever have I claimed to be a "genius", I reserve that term for the people who've studied harder than I have.)

You want to sound smart? Go to college and take the hard classes.

excaza

13th September 2008 - 02:23 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 12 2008, 09:14 PM)

You want to sound smart? Go to college and take the hard classes.

So those EE classes make you fully able to sound smart about biochem?

When are you going to start?

QUOTE

I'm trying to save peoples' lives, here,

Then why the FU*K are you posting HERE!? GO DO SOMETHING IN THE REAL WORLD!

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I'm trying to save peoples' lives, here,

Then why the FU*K are you posting HERE!? GO DO SOMETHING IN THE REAL WORLD!

Bottom line: Devoting more time learning than the average person is willing to spend.

Wrong. There are people who have spent their whole lives on a subject and are still idiots when asked about it.

QUOTE

Anybody else here think that this pretty much *clinches* my position that Genesplicer and TheDoc are the same guy?

No, it doesn't *clinch* anything, you're a retard to think so.

GeneSplicer

13th September 2008 - 02:41 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

Anybody else here think that this pretty much *clinches* my position that Genesplicer and TheDoc are the same guy?

LOL. Keep reaching.

QUOTE

I'm here to let people know that if they've got MRSA or AIDS or malaria or Hepatitis C, that there's scientific proof that "nanosilver hydrosol" is available to them that has both anecdotal evidence *AND* scientific support that there's a more-viable alternate treatment than is available to them through conventional therapy.

Only if you totally misrepresent legitimate research and outright lie.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I'm here to let people know that if they've got MRSA or AIDS or malaria or Hepatitis C, that there's scientific proof that "nanosilver hydrosol" is available to them that has both anecdotal evidence *AND* scientific support that there's a more-viable alternate treatment than is available to them through conventional therapy.

Only if you totally misrepresent legitimate research and outright lie.

I'm trying to save peoples' lives, here, and "Genesplicer" is just playing dishonest word-games because his own ego won't let him stop trying to prove that *he's* smarter than I am.

So you came to a physics forum to “save lives”? And how exactly do you plan on doing that will just preaching your faith-based belief about colloidal silver?

Is this like when you went to a support cite for an autoimmune disease and recommended CS?

I’m not the one who felt the need to mention a membership in an organization like the ISPE when people in another thread dared to disagree with your claims. You tried to use authority as a reason as to why they should back down.

QUOTE

There was a report on research into what makes a person a genius, published recently here on PhysOrg - Bottom line: Devoting more time learning than the average person is willing to spend. If you want to be smarter than me, GS/TheDoc, you needed to start a long, long time ago.

So again you try to use a self proclaimed position of authority to try to BS your way out of the painful fact that you cannot back up what you claim with a legitimate source or have to misrepresent legitimate research.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

There was a report on research into what makes a person a genius, published recently here on PhysOrg - Bottom line: Devoting more time learning than the average person is willing to spend. If you want to be smarter than me, GS/TheDoc, you needed to start a long, long time ago.

So again you try to use a self proclaimed position of authority to try to BS your way out of the painful fact that you cannot back up what you claim with a legitimate source or have to misrepresent legitimate research.

My Masters in Electrical Engineering didn't come in the mail. (And for the record, I'm not now nor ever have I claimed to be a "genius", I reserve that term for the people who've studied harder than I have.)

Right. Bragging about that .1% organization and all.

Your formal education does nothing and is nothing relevant to your claims about CS or your inability to back those claims up.

It has been stated over and over that if what you claim is true, then you should have proof to back it up. The fact that you have to resort to misrepresentations and lies rather than a rational argument and cited references is proof that you have no such support.

And then there is your hypocrisy about negative feedback and your stalking.

QUOTE

You want to sound smart? Go to college and take the hard classes.

Why? You went and you don’t sound “smart", nor do you act in an intelligent manner.

And again, formal education does not mean that your claims are factual.

So, are you one of those intellectual elitist who thinks that a person is only intelligent if they have a formal education? Kind of sounds like that from your latest post.

TheDoc

13th September 2008 - 03:49 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

Exactly the same "defense" that "gene-splicer" used, that it wasn't *his* fault that *I* was misled by the name "gene-splicer" into thinking that perhaps his occupation involved *splicing genes*.

And again, so $&#%-ing what? My name implies that I'm a 903-year-old alien from the other side of the galaxy. It also implies that I'm a Nazi defector who worked with the U.S. government during the Cold War. Does that mean I'm either of those? No, it doesn't.

QUOTE

Anybody else here think that was an unreasonable assumption to make?

No, and once again you demonstrate how far you will go to make both GeneSplicer and I look like the people who "misled" you.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Anybody else here think that was an unreasonable assumption to make?

No, and once again you demonstrate how far you will go to make both GeneSplicer and I look like the people who "misled" you.

Anybody else here think that this pretty much *clinches* my position that Genesplicer and TheDoc are the same guy?

You haven't *clinched* anything, buddy. You can try and twist the meaning of my name all you want, but in the end you've got absolutely no proof that I'm GeneSplicer. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

QUOTE

I'm trying to save peoples' lives, here

Then take excaza's advice and get out into the real world, you idiot. That's the only place you will make a sizeable impact. Not whining on a lowly physics forum.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I'm trying to save peoples' lives, here

Then take excaza's advice and get out into the real world, you idiot. That's the only place you will make a sizeable impact. Not whining on a lowly physics forum.

If you want to be smarter than me, GS/TheDoc, you needed to start a long, long time ago.

I'm fairly certain that I'm not as dishonest as you are. And I'm fairly certain that GeneSplicer isn't, either.

QUOTE

My Masters in Electrical Engineering didn't come in the mail.

Yeah, well, neither did my flying phone booth. Go figure.

Grumpy

13th September 2008 - 04:36 AM

WCelliot

QUOTE

Exactly the same "defense" that "gene-splicer" used, that it wasn't *his* fault that *I* was misled by the name "gene-splicer" into thinking that perhaps his occupation involved *splicing genes*.

You mean you're not a WATER CLOSET named elliot??? How deceptive.

Grumpy

wcelliott

13th September 2008 - 06:10 AM

Grumpy, I expected "TheDoc/GeneSplicer" to stoop to this level, but the last time we were on the same thread, we were on the same side, and I considered you a friend. If you recall, I'm the one who kept quoting you about "Plane hit building, building burns, building falls down" as being the most-concise explanation of 9/11.

And you're equating my using the initials of my real name with someone obviously attempting to pass themself off as a scientist, and his sockpuppet as a doctor? Who's being honest here, me, using a version of my real name, or "gene-splicer" who only under pressure admitted he never spliced a gene?

Incidentally, there's a lot more evidence supporting that they're the same person, if you really want to wade through some muck. They both misrepresent your statements, then accuse you of being a "liar" when you correct their misrepresentation with making the same statement as before. They both accuse people of being "hypocrites" inappropriately (i.e., when no hypocrisy is involved), and "TheDoc" asserted that I argued "dishonestly" with MjolnirPants in the relatively civil discussion of the Pyramids (under the "Stonehenge" thread, started by "TheDoc"). I've just re-read the whole thread, and there's not a single thing about that discussion that remotely approaches dishonesty. I did have trouble getting the point across to MP about how the thing was intended to work, but neither of us accused the other of lying about anything. Strange, how "TheDoc" claims I was arguing dishonestly in his own thread, yet never posted a single opinion (under "TheDoc", at least) after the first post. MjolnirPants did drop the "aw-shucks writin' stile" bit eventually, and started citing how I was getting "close to making ad hominem arguments" when I expressed my frustration with his lack of grasp of how the thing would've worked, and accused me of making "appeals to authority" when I mentioned that design-points are compromises between many factors in large engineering endeavors, and in my thirty years as a Systems Engineer, I never saw one compromise solution that made everybody happy. You'd think if it was TheDoc's thread, that he'd have made comments in it when it strayed off-topic, from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid, especially if, as he claims, his motivation was my "dishonest" debating techniques.

That, too, is something the two of them share in common, thinking every thread is a "debate" to be won, rather than a discussion of physical principles and interesting ideas. New ideas, especially, are interesting to people who discover things. Being the first to discover a new idea means that there *is* no documented FDA-Approved online citation, as the FDA isn't chartered with finding cures for dread diseases, but it IS chartered to REGULATE DRUGS (discovered and promoted by others).

Why am I here, posting these ideas on PhysOrg? Notice how many of my links are to PhysOrg articles? I found out about Colloidal Silver here on this forum. I'm hoping that there are other people on this forum who are also interested in new ideas, and may be in a better position to translate the ideas into reality than I am. If you look at my "Insurance Companies Should Invest in Cures instead of playing the stock market" thread, you'll see that I'm actually making a concrete suggestion right there in the title as to how to fix the current health care system's main problem - R&D budgets come out of profits and research projects are funded based on expected Return on Investment. Big pharmaceutical companies aren't charities, they're corporations, and as such, they fund the R&D that makes them the most money. Cures, you get to charge the patients for ONCE, treatments, you get to charge the patients for for the rest of their lives. Which is more profitable? The average AIDS patient lives 23 years after first being diagnosed as being HIV+. The "cocktail", last I heard, costs about $1000/month. That works out to over a quarter-million dollars per HIV+ patient. How much could they actually get away with charging for a *cure*? Have you ever heard of a once-shot-cure for *anything* that they could charge a quarter-million dollars for? Treatments are where the profits are, and treatments are where the R&D budgets are spent. Potential cures are "orphaned" (a term used in the BioMedical research field).

But I cited the fix to the problem, which was that Insurance Companies Should Fund the R&D for Cures, as they're the ones who get stuck with the health-care costs for the life-long treatments. Win-win. If there's some guy reading this thread who works for an insurance company, he's got an idea he can e-mail the CEO. (The CEO will probably steal his idea and fire him to keep him from being around to contradict him when he claims it was *his* idea, of course, but that's called "business experience", to paraphrase a recent Dilbert.) When insurance companies get tired of getting gouged by expensive treatments, they'll eventually wise-up and start funding human trials for the more obvious "orphaned cures", and pocket the profits, all for the best, the way that capitalism is supposed to work.

And as for doing something in the real world, you missed the thread where I stated that I'd e-mailed the Bill Gates malaria-research organization the same information/links I posted here earlier, and posted that I tried getting the CDC, Doctors without Frontiers (three different offices), a Harvard Medical School doctor famous for treating third-world plagues and criticizing pharmaceutical companies for price-gouging the relief organizations, plus somebody in the Congolese government's health-care organization the information and links to the HIV-1 Research paper during the more recent Ebola outbreak to try to get them to just *try* CS on their patients who are dying anyway, but no one responded to any of my e-mails.

I've also posted similar research/links to various blogsites dedicated to specific diseases that I felt CS could help, notably the Job's Syndrome site. Job's victims are more susceptable to fungal and bacterial infections than normal, and CS - Oops! "Nanosilver Hydrosol/Ionic Silver" has been stated effective against both, according to FDA-Approved Websites posted by those quacks at Johnson&Johnson and Bristol-Myers Squib.

And if you don't believe me when I say that CS and Nanosilver Hydrosol are the same things, just google either and start reading the links. As I said before, the minute I post a link to a CS-selling website, TheDoc/GeneSplicer will accuse me of being a shill for that company. I've never made CS, I've never sold it, but I have bought it in bulk and given it away to my closest friends. But if I post even one link to any website, I'll be branded as a "snake-oil salesman". So google it yourself and you'll quickly learn that they're the same thing.

GeneSplicer

13th September 2008 - 07:02 AM

Still not seeing any legitimate research claiming that colloidal silver cures what you claim it does. So why do you keep avoiding this? Why do you keep lying about legitimate silver research?

And again, your hollow claims are not sufficient.

Raphie Frank

13th September 2008 - 08:40 AM

QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 12 2008, 02:18 AM)

QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)

Oh, and I don't see anything that backed up your claim that TheDoc is a sockpuppet account of mine.

I suggest an addition to the index: 30 points for claiming that if you agree with someone else you're a sockpuppet.

I second that suggestion.

Grumpy

13th September 2008 - 11:39 AM

wcelliot

I was trying, in my not so subtle way, to get you to see that this accusation of dishonesty because of the choice of internet handle is ridiculous, DROP IT.

Also, I really don't care if someone uses a sockpuppet or not, unless it is to purposely deceive(which I have seen neither do, ever), get around a ban or simply as a disposable flame thrower. I don't, and I never have used a sockpuppet. I doubt, SERIOUSLY, that Doc and GS are one and the same, nor would it make me less respectful of their opinions as long as they are based on logic.

As to Colloidal Silver, they are correct, and you are wrong. Having had intelligent conversations in the past I know you are capable of reason, but in this case you are being unreasonable. Not only do I doubt the claims made, but I have seen information indicating toxicity is a real problem. You've expressed your opinion, they have expressed theirs, you will have to accept the fact that you will never convince them, nor, evidently, they, you. But experience tells me that "Miracle cures" are neither miracles nor are they cures. Caveat emptor.

Grumpy

yor_on

13th September 2008 - 12:30 PM

Colloidal Silver were used and are used by Doctors in Canada.
When modern antibiotics came it lost interest as somewhere of, if I remember right here, one in a thousand (?) got side-effects of it and (as a worst case) even could die.

But it sure worked. I'm not sure it works for all diseases though :)

This one article may be of interest perhaps. And if you search on colloidal Silver on physorg there are others that have tried it and are ready to swear by it too.

But there is a lot of 'hype' in all alternative medicines.

But we're going to need alternatives to those expensive 'tailored' vaccines, as antibiotics fast is disappearing from the market due to peoples falsifications of it, and their inability to use it right.
Also it has to do with global travels making a smaller planet.

excaza

13th September 2008 - 01:13 PM

From your link.

QUOTE

If the public were told the truth, a rarity when it comes to mainstream drugs versus natural competition, colloidal silver would represent a huge threat to literally billions of dollars of profits and so it is no wonder that mainstream medicine and their allies in the mainstream media are once again loudly singing the blues

Ah yes, the conspiracy theory. The author does not prove his claims, does not provide references, and just states his own opinion as fact. I wouldn't believe him any more than I'd believe wcelliott. Speaking of which:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

If the public were told the truth, a rarity when it comes to mainstream drugs versus natural competition, colloidal silver would represent a huge threat to literally billions of dollars of profits and so it is no wonder that mainstream medicine and their allies in the mainstream media are once again loudly singing the blues

Ah yes, the conspiracy theory. The author does not prove his claims, does not provide references, and just states his own opinion as fact. I wouldn't believe him any more than I'd believe wcelliott. Speaking of which:

If there's some guy reading this thread who works for an insurance company, he's got an idea he can e-mail the CEO.

WAHAHAHAHAHA

QUOTE

Who's being honest here, me, using a version of my real name, or "gene-splicer" who only under pressure admitted he never spliced a gene?

Why the FU*K does it matter!? I don't see you confronting MjolnirPants about whether or not he has a norse god in his crotch. I don't see you confronting Newton about whether or not he is Isaac Newton. I don't see you confronting grasshopper about whether or not he's an insect. I don't see you confronting trout about whether or not he's a fish. I don't see you asking grumpy if he's really grumpy. Are you going to go on a one-man crusade against the millions of men and women using the "sexybabe2957498745987245" screenames? I can almost guarantee that 95% of them look like trolls. That's dishonesty right there.

It's only dishonest if he CLAIMED TO SPLICE GENES. Which he NEVER HAS.

You're reaching and making yourself look like an absolute retard.

TheDoc

13th September 2008 - 04:17 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

And you're equating my using the initials of my real name with someone obviously attempting to pass themself off as a scientist, and his sockpuppet as a doctor? Who's being honest here, me, using a version of my real name, or "gene-splicer" who only under pressure admitted he never spliced a gene?

And yet again, so $&#%-ing what?

It's only dishonest if I claimed to be a doctor, you idiot! And what you once again fail to get through your thick head is that a person's username has nothing to do with their occupation or status in real life. So what if GeneSplicer never spliced a gene? So what if I've never performed a surgery? Neither of us claimed to do those respective things.

I honestly don't give a flying $&#% if your real name is W. Carter Elliott, or whatever the hell it is. It has nothing to do with the discussion and it doesn't strike me as dishonest if your name really isn't W. Carter Elliott. This is a physics forum. Usernames can only be considered dishonest if you are deliberately and actively lying about their implications.

QUOTE

Incidentally, there's a lot more evidence supporting that they're the same person, if you really want to wade through some muck. They both misrepresent your statements, then accuse you of being a "liar" when you correct their misrepresentation with making the same statement as before.

Really? What about the time you claimed that I gave GeneSplicer positives every time you gave him a negative? I quickly showed that claim of yours to be false, if not an outright lie, and you never responded to it again.

Real honest of you.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Incidentally, there's a lot more evidence supporting that they're the same person, if you really want to wade through some muck. They both misrepresent your statements, then accuse you of being a "liar" when you correct their misrepresentation with making the same statement as before.

Really? What about the time you claimed that I gave GeneSplicer positives every time you gave him a negative? I quickly showed that claim of yours to be false, if not an outright lie, and you never responded to it again.

Real honest of you.

They both accuse people of being "hypocrites" inappropriately (i.e., when no hypocrisy is involved)

And here's where you're being dishonest, you hypocrite.

I can list several occasions where I've not only accused someone of being a hypocrite, but backed it up too. Would you like me to do so?

QUOTE

"TheDoc" asserted that I argued "dishonestly" with MjolnirPants in the relatively civil discussion of the Pyramids (under the "Stonehenge" thread, started by "TheDoc"). I've just re-read the whole thread, and there's not a single thing about that discussion that remotely approaches dishonesty.

Really?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"TheDoc" asserted that I argued "dishonestly" with MjolnirPants in the relatively civil discussion of the Pyramids (under the "Stonehenge" thread, started by "TheDoc"). I've just re-read the whole thread, and there's not a single thing about that discussion that remotely approaches dishonesty.

Really?

Since you haven't demonstrated any understanding of how the baseline concept works, discussing how to build them *better* would be pointless.

...And this was despite MjolnirPants pointing out several flaws in your concept and pointing out how they would hinder your firebox thingy.

QUOTE

Strange, how "TheDoc" claims I was arguing dishonestly in his own thread, yet never posted a single opinion (under "TheDoc", at least) after the first post.

And again, how does the former relate to the latter? I have eyes. Just because I don't post does not mean I don't read.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Strange, how "TheDoc" claims I was arguing dishonestly in his own thread, yet never posted a single opinion (under "TheDoc", at least) after the first post.

And again, how does the former relate to the latter? I have eyes. Just because I don't post does not mean I don't read.

You'd think if it was TheDoc's thread, that he'd have made comments in it when it strayed off-topic, from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid, especially if, as he claims, his motivation was my "dishonest" debating techniques.

And yet again, how does the former relate to the latter? So a thread slowly being taken off-topic through discussion is deliberately dishonest?

QUOTE

That, too, is something the two of them share in common, thinking every thread is a "debate" to be won, rather than a discussion of physical principles and interesting ideas.

Liar. If someone says something that I believe is wrong, or has already been proven wrong, I'll show how it's wrong. If they persist, I call them what they are, an idiot.

wcelliott

13th September 2008 - 05:14 PM

QUOTE

It's only dishonest if he CLAIMED TO SPLICE GENES. Which he NEVER HAS.

No, it's dishonesty when, in several earlier threads, he POSED as a "scientist", asserting that I knew "nothing of the scientific method" and in post after post, thread after thread, tried to assert that he knew more about biomedical research than I did, which he might well have IF HE'D EVER WORKED IN BIOMEDICINE SPLICING GENES, when the facts were finally dragged out of him, turned out that he's had NO experience in that field.

HE was the one who was "arguing from authority", I had to post personal information about myself to support that I WAS ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH HIM. Only LATER did it come out that he's speaking out of his @ss when it comes to this topic, and that I never misrepresented any aspect of myself in any of the posts, and provided links supporting all the claims that are available on the web.

God knows how hard it is to get GS/TheDoc to do a simple Google Search on "nanosilver hydrosol", and apparently neither are willing to accept that silver nanoparticles are silver nanoparticles, they don't know where they come from, they have no "special powers" when they come from FDA-Approved products that they don't have when they come from non-FDA-Approved products. Silver is silver. It's an element. In small clusters, it seems to bind to the enzymes that pathogens of various sorts use to stick to and/or penetrate cell membranes. That's STEP #1 for infections, blocked by small clusters of silver atoms.

Anybody curious about the actual PHYSICS as to how that works?

I'm glad you asked:

http://www.physorg.com/news134129791.html

Please note that it's an article from PhysOrg, posted recently (AFTER these discussions on CS began).

"Researchers at Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands have developed a technique for generating atom clusters made from silver and other metals. Surprisingly enough, these so-called super atoms (clusters of 13 silver atoms, for example) behave in the same way as individual atoms and have opened up a whole new branch of chemistry. "

Anybody here ever see "Thunderball"? Remember the jetpack that 007 used in the opening sequence? That jetpack is real, and has been used before (developed by the US military) and after (in the opening of one of the prior Olympic games' ceremonies). Know how it works? It uses hydrogen peroxide as "fuel" (actually, "monopropellant" is more accurate) and a SILVER SCREEN as the CATALYST, breaking H2O2 into steam and oxygen, which is vented through those nozzles above Bond's head for thrust.

Gee, SILVER is a CATALYST.

What's a CATALYST?

It's something that lowers the energy barrier between a chemical that's kinda stable at one state and more stable in another (different) state. Like H2O2, which is unstable, turning into H2O and O2, both of which are more stable.

So What's an ENZYME?

It's something that changes one Big molecule into another Big molecule (or splits the one into more than one) by lowering the energy barrier between the first state and the second state.

Anybody else see any similarities between CATALYSTS and ENZYMES?

Anybody see where this is headed?

these so-called super atoms (clusters of 13 silver atoms, for example) behave in the same way as individual atoms

And individual silver atoms are catalysts, but they're too small to interact with enzymes, because enzymes are much bigger, some having hundreds of atoms, some having thousands, some bigger than that.

But if you cluster together individual silver atoms into "SuperAtoms", they maintain their catalytic nature, only at a scale where they're big enough that they can interact with ENZYMES. Like the ENZYMES that PATHOGENS use to breach cell membranes (and cell walls of plants):

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

"Key to virulence protein entry into host cells discovered"

Postdoctoral fellow Dr. Daolong Dou, the lead author of the article, commented: "We have suspected for a long time that these virulence proteins had some way of slipping inside plant cells to suppress immunity. Our findings finally nail down that mechanism and enable us to focus on how to block the entry mechanism.

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."

Gee, imagine that. Plants AND animals BOTH BEING INFECTED by the SAME ENTRY MECHANISMS, COMMON TO FUNGI AND THE MALARIA PARASITE.

But the notion that clusters of silver particles being capable of blocking both FUNGI and MALARIAL PARASITES is just "snake oil", right?

Care to skip back a page or so where I quoted Johnson&Johnson and Bristol-Myers Squib (those shameless "snake-oil" hucksters) saying that ionic silver/silver nanoparticles were effective against "all relevant pathogens", "Fungi and Viruses", and where I posted a reprint of my "Malaria Cure?" post?

Are you starting to see how this all links together (or do I have to translate all this to baby-talk)?

Grumpy

13th September 2008 - 05:33 PM

wcelliott

Oh, give it up. You will make no converts to such a chain of illogical and unrelated facts. Submit it to efficacy trials OR SHUT THE HELL UP.

Grumpy

wcelliott

14th September 2008 - 12:47 AM

Grumpy, I once thought we were friends. Sorry to see this side of you.

Efficacy trials? How about *clinical trials*, as presented in testimony before Congress:

http://healthyagain.biz/testimony.htm

"Presented to Members of The House International
Relations Committee Subcommittee on Africa, Global
Human Rights, and International Operations

"Good Morning. I am William D. Moeller, Chairman and President of American Biotech Laboratories of Alpine, Utah ("ABL"), a company which produces engineered, metallic silver, nano-sized particles in water-based products. Our engineered silver particles have performed far beyond anyone's expectations as anti-microbial agents, against a staggering variety of microbes such as malaria, flesh-eating bacteria (MRSA - Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and E.coli.

Whether used on surfaces as disinfectants or if taken internally as supplements, all of our ABL products are non-toxic and have no known adverse human side effects. Our products have surprised many experts in the medical and science worlds because of their ability to combat bacteria, yeast, and viruses. ABL products have been proven to destroy anthrax spores and bubonic plague bacteria on surfaces, to eliminate the malaria parasite in humans and a host of other beneficial results.
...
In 1998 we created ABL with the idea of manufacturing high quality, standardized colloidal silver products.
...
they contain engineered nano-sized particles of metallic silver dispersed in a matrix of pure water
...
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.
...
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. This affected me deeply and I realized that our ASAP 10 ppm had potent, positive effects on malaria patients. "

So, GS, the clinical trials had *controls*, the children who weren't treated died. Happy now?

"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. These engineered silver particles currently vary in size between about 10-50 nanometers in diameter
...
it appears that the silver particles function as catalysts, which promote certain lethal reactions in only unfriendly microbes (i.e., the destruction of bacteria, fungi and viruses).
...

Another preliminary trial occurred at the Air Force Hospital in Ghana where the Medical Officer in Charge was Dr. Evelyn Kwabiah. The five patients treated by Dr. Kwabiah all had positive outcomes (see Appendix 6). Dr. Kwabiah reported that patients with malaria who had received the ASAP 10: recovered faster than those receiving conventional treatments; recovered where conventional treatments had failed; or, that the ASAP 10 functioned as a prophylactic preventing the recurrence of malaria.
...
MALARIA STUDIES
Ultimately, the success of ABL's ASAP 10 ppm against malaria gained such widespread acceptance in Ghana that the Food and Drugs Board of the Republic of Ghana issued a Certificate of Registration of a Drug for ABL's product
...
To obtain better data concerning ASAP 10's effectiveness against malaria, ABL (in cooperation with competent university medical professionals) designed a new protocol (see Appendix 8). The new protocol required that all Malaria patients be monitored for 15 days and were encouraged to return for follow-up testing and assessment with financial incentives (patients were paid a few dollars a day to come back and be monitored and tested).
...
Study #3 listed in Appendix 9 was the most reliable of the studies and used the protocol described in Appendix 8. The data showed that out of the 41 Malaria patients (ages 1-90 years) involved in the studies and receiving ASAP 10, all 41 people survived and there were no treatment failures. All participating patients were deemed to have achieved full recovery in an average of 4.5 to 6.5 days, with recovery time differences probably being due in part to differences in total dosages. Clearly the data suggest that ABL's ASAP 10 ppm product, when administered in 2-3 teaspoon quantities 2-3 times per day (i.e., one ounce per day) reverses malaria and saves lives.
No undesirable or drug-like side effects were reported by any of the patients in any of these more rigorous studies. We believe that this was because the ASAP 10 ppm is primarily water with very small amounts of catalyst-like metallic silver particles therein,.
...
The ASAP 10 ppm product, in quantities of about 1 ounce per day, seems to eliminate the symptoms of malaria in human patients in about 4-6 days.
...
And then there's a letter from a retired Lt. General-USAF, who's also an MD and works for Homeland Security to Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge, but it's a .pdf image and I can't just grab text from it, so go look at it for yourself, noting mid-page where he says it's effective against Anthrax, the bubonic plague, hospital staph (MRSA), and SARS, and should be stockpiled to protect Americans from bioterrorist attacks.
...
ASAP is a broad spectrum anti-microbial with demonstrated effects against a wide variety of organisms including B. subtilis (a surrogate for Anthrax testing), numerous Staphylococcus species (including "flesh eating bacteria"), E. coli, Salmonella, bovine tuberculosis (a surrogate for human tuberculosis testing), and various fungi and viruses. ASAP has also been used in the treatment of both complicated and uncomplicated malaria and after traditional antimalarial drugs failed, even in babies as previously described. "

For the record, I have nothing to do with American Biotech Laboratories, never did, and I don't even recommend their product. I get mine elsewhere cheaper, and it's just as effective. Their claims that their products are superior to other "nanosilver-particles-in-ultrapure-water" products is simple "puffery", like when every laundry detergent claims to be better than every other laundry detergent. It's all just nanoparticles of silver in ultrapure water. I buy the cheapest stuff on the market, not any of ABL's products.

But it is nice that they're running clinical trials, saving lives, and posting the results of the research on the web.

GeneSplicer

14th September 2008 - 02:53 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

No, it's dishonesty when, in several earlier threads, he POSED as a "scientist",

And that is a lie. Please cite where I ever claimed to be a scientist. Again, you

QUOTE

keep claiming I have made these claims but you fail to cite exactly where I did.
asserting that I knew "nothing of the scientific method"

You don’t if you believe that going to a ward if ill people and giving them all the same treatment is a viable testing method.

You also do not understand the scientific method if you continually denounce or dismiss double-blind studies.

And then there is your rather odd claim that scientists engaged in research are simply collecting anecdotal evidence.

Again, your own claims are not backed up by what you have posted.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

keep claiming I have made these claims but you fail to cite exactly where I did.
asserting that I knew "nothing of the scientific method"

You don’t if you believe that going to a ward if ill people and giving them all the same treatment is a viable testing method.

You also do not understand the scientific method if you continually denounce or dismiss double-blind studies.

And then there is your rather odd claim that scientists engaged in research are simply collecting anecdotal evidence.

Again, your own claims are not backed up by what you have posted.

and in post after post, thread after thread, tried to assert that he knew more about biomedical research than I did,

Again that is a lie. I stated how your claims regarding proper medical testing or your dismissal of proper medical testing illustrated just how much you did not know about what you were trying to address.

QUOTE

which he might well have IF HE'D EVER WORKED IN BIOMEDICINE SPLICING GENES,

Again, not so. When I can cite how your claims regarding testing are note the rational nor proper methods of testing drugs or treatments and I can cite how you comment negatively about such procedures, I have show that you know not of what you speak.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

which he might well have IF HE'D EVER WORKED IN BIOMEDICINE SPLICING GENES,

Again, not so. When I can cite how your claims regarding testing are note the rational nor proper methods of testing drugs or treatments and I can cite how you comment negatively about such procedures, I have show that you know not of what you speak.

when the facts were finally dragged out of him, turned out that he's had NO experience in that field.

And again, another lie. I never claimed to be scientists nor did I ever try to hide that fact. I even have mentioned that I was a layman.

QUOTE

HE was the one who was "arguing from authority",

Again, that is a lie. In another thread where you argued others, you took offence that they treated you as if you were not knowledgeable in the field you were arguing about.

This led to you mention and brag about your name on a patent, your work history and your membership in the ISPE. You have continually tried to argue as an authority due to your membership in the .1% ISPE since then.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

HE was the one who was "arguing from authority",

Again, that is a lie. In another thread where you argued others, you took offence that they treated you as if you were not knowledgeable in the field you were arguing about.

This led to you mention and brag about your name on a patent, your work history and your membership in the ISPE. You have continually tried to argue as an authority due to your membership in the .1% ISPE since then.

I had to post personal information about myself to support that I WAS ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH HIM.

I’m sorry, I thought I was not qualified? Now I’m on equal footing?

And what personal information did you have to post that was not available by searching online for your name?

QUOTE

Only LATER did it come out that he's speaking out of his @ss when it comes to this topic,

Again, not so. If what you claim here were true, then you would have been able to back up your claims about colloidal silver and show that I was in error. You have yet to do so.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Only LATER did it come out that he's speaking out of his @ss when it comes to this topic,

Again, not so. If what you claim here were true, then you would have been able to back up your claims about colloidal silver and show that I was in error. You have yet to do so.

and that I never misrepresented any aspect of myself in any of the posts, and provided links supporting all the claims that are available on the web.

And again, that is a lie. I have pointed out over and over that the mention of silver in any legitimate research does not translate into support for your claims about colloidal silver.

QUOTE

God knows how hard it is to get GS/TheDoc to do a simple Google Search on "nanosilver hydrosol",

Again, that is not how it works. You made the claim(s) therefore it falls upon you to back those claims up. Telling people to “go look it up” as you have done on more than one occasion is not sufficient.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

God knows how hard it is to get GS/TheDoc to do a simple Google Search on "nanosilver hydrosol",

Again, that is not how it works. You made the claim(s) therefore it falls upon you to back those claims up. Telling people to “go look it up” as you have done on more than one occasion is not sufficient.

and apparently neither are willing to accept that silver nanoparticles are silver nanoparticles,

Again, that is not true. Show me where I have ever doubted that silver nanoparticles cited and mentioned in the research discussed were not nanoparticles or silver.

QUOTE

they don't know where they come from,

Again, a lie. Cite you support for this claim please.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

they don't know where they come from,

Again, a lie. Cite you support for this claim please.

they have no "special powers" when they come from FDA-Approved products that they don't have when they come from non-FDA-Approved products.

And again, the silver-based product approved by the FDA have one thing your colloidal silver does not; reliable proof of the products efficacy.

QUOTE

Silver is silver.

Again, according to you and a repetitive claim you keep making over and over with nothing to back it up. Silver is not silver when it comes to the varied application that have been proven effective unlike CS.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Silver is silver.

Again, according to you and a repetitive claim you keep making over and over with nothing to back it up. Silver is not silver when it comes to the varied application that have been proven effective unlike CS.

It's an element. In small clusters, it seems to bind to the enzymes that pathogens of various sorts use to stick to and/or penetrate cell membranes. That's STEP #1 for infections, blocked by small clusters of silver atoms.

Bastardizing legitimate research again. Show me the research that proves CS does what you claim it does.

QUOTE

"Researchers at Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands have developed a technique for generating atom clusters made from silver and other metals. Surprisingly enough, these so-called super atoms (clusters of 13 silver atoms, for example) behave in the same way as individual atoms and have opened up a whole new branch of chemistry. "

And this has nothing to do with colloidal silver. Neither does the other research you keep misrepresenting as support for your CS.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"Researchers at Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands have developed a technique for generating atom clusters made from silver and other metals. Surprisingly enough, these so-called super atoms (clusters of 13 silver atoms, for example) behave in the same way as individual atoms and have opened up a whole new branch of chemistry. "

And this has nothing to do with colloidal silver. Neither does the other research you keep misrepresenting as support for your CS.

Are you starting to see how this all links together (or do I have to translate all this to baby-talk)?

You can stop lying, stop insulting and stop misrepresenting legitimate research and provide support for the claims regarding colloidal silver.

While you are at it, you can also cite exactly where on this forum I have ever state what you claim I have.

If you cannot, then your claims are not supported by fact and your constant repetition of them indicates your willingness to willfully post that which you have been show not to be factual.

And one last fact about your elitist view. I noticed how you dropped the condescending comments about education and going back to school. Why was that I wonder?

Oh, and you never explained how I am stopping you from saving lives or why you troll the support website of people with autoimmune diseases singing the praises of colloidal silver to aid/cure them.

GeneSplicer

14th September 2008 - 02:59 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

I've never made CS, I've never sold it, but I have bought it in bulk and given it away to my closest friends.

Yes, and speaking of that, you once claimed to have done so just prior to 9/11 after hearing that Al-Qaeda was up to something.

That is yet another odd claim you have yet to address.

RealityCheck

14th September 2008 - 03:10 AM

.
Hi all.

Perhaps it might help to remember where the original impetus for looking at 'heavy metals' of all sorts came from in the area of pathogenic bacteria debilitation.

If you will all pause a moment and research how surfaces of COPPER/BRASS for DOOR HANDLES will self-clean of dangerous pathogens over a few hours, it will be easy to see where this line of enquiry/experimentation arose from straightforward observations of what heavy metals CAN do in some cases.

Also remember that heavy metals DO interfere with 'moulds/algae' and other organisms' metabolism. Hence the use of various copper/other compounds in boat hull paints below the waterline (these have recently been replaced by inorganic/organic formulations that are less toxic to fish etc.). And hence the use in some ANTI-FUNGAL housepaints and some (older?) topical personal creams to treat fungal infections.

IIRC, there are many more research efforts in using COATED heavy/other metallic 'vector molecules' to carry some other agent into/onto the membrane of 'targeted' cancer/infected cells...which can only work IF these metallic carriers/infiltrators/binders do in fact seek, reach and 'bind/interfere' with the usual protective 'chemical tricks' that viruses etc use to 'hide' from the immune system.

Anyhow, I just wanted to point out that the whole field is WIDE OPEN and still in its nascent stage in MANY AREAS of medicine.

This was all from my old memory and recent incidental reading/research for other matters.....so yet further OWN research into the literature is called for by everyone, no matter who is on what 'side' in any particular discussion about any particular 'heavy metal'.

PS: As for 'who is pushing what or not' and 'who is whose 'sockpuppet' or not, etc etc.....I'll keep well clear of that stuff! hehehe.

Cheers all!

RC.

GeneSplicer

14th September 2008 - 03:13 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

So, GS, the clinical trials had *controls*, the children who weren't treated died. Happy now?

Ah, don't you mean Doc? Or GS/Doc?

It is comments like that which are proof that you do not understand how medical trials are conducted to prove a treatment is effective.

And where is the documentation of these trials? Is it at the sales blog you got this testimony from?

The day of this is form April 26,2005. Where are the follow-up tests and studies?

If this was as effective as the man claims, then his results would be repeatable, yes?

So again, you cite a source regarding CS that makes claims of a verifiable cure, but it appears to be a one-off since no follow up studies and trails were conducted.

And you keep denouncing legitimate trials and testing methods making one emotional condemnation and plea after another.

So tell me again just how you know so much about proper testing methods and the scientific methods in general and just how wrong I am.

QUOTE

But it is nice that they're running clinical trials, saving lives, and posting the results of the research on the web.

Really? Where? Again, this is from 2005 and the story you cited is not from any biotech company engaged in research. Your source is a sales blog for what appears to be more CS products.

wcelliott

14th September 2008 - 07:25 AM

QUOTE

Yes, and speaking of that, you once claimed to have done so just prior to 9/11 after hearing that Al-Qaeda was up to something.

That is yet another odd claim you have yet to address.

I'm happy you brought this up. It gives me a perfect example of both your dishonest "debating" tactic of misrepresenting a statement and of your favorite tactic, badgering people for answers to questions that make no sense, over and over and over...

Find the quote and back up your claim that I ever said anything about providing CS to my friends prior to 9/11.

And don't try ducking this one, because I'll keep bringing it up, over and over and over, just like you did, until you do. A "taste of your own medicine".

wcelliott

14th September 2008 - 07:32 AM

Before I forget, thanks RC! It's good to hear the voice of reason again.

QUOTE

QUOTE
"TheDoc" asserted that I argued "dishonestly" with MjolnirPants in the relatively civil discussion of the Pyramids (under the "Stonehenge" thread, started by "TheDoc"). I've just re-read the whole thread, and there's not a single thing about that discussion that remotely approaches dishonesty.

Really?

QUOTE (wcelliott @ "Stonehenge Mystery Solved", Jun 26, 2008)
Since you haven't demonstrated any understanding of how the baseline concept works, discussing how to build them *better* would be pointless.

...And this was despite MjolnirPants pointing out several flaws in your concept and pointing out how they would hinder your firebox thingy.

Wading through the muck it is.

MP failed (repeatedly) to understand the concept, demonstrating that with his every objection. We were talking about the "sarcophagus" being too short for an adult body, and I argued that this supported my claim that it was never meant for a pharaoh, it was made of a single piece of granite because that was the highest-temperature material that they had and it was there to hold burning wood, like a barbecue pit. The point of the barbecue pit was to heat the granite slabs above it to high temperatures so that when water breached the top of the firebox, it'd spill over the edge into the burning wood and shoot steam up at the superheated granite slabs above the firebox, creating a bubble of superheated steam above the pool of water in the "King's Chamber", which would force the water in the King's Chamber out the "airvents" leading out of the King's Chamber to the east and west sides of the Great Pyramid.

MP's objections regarding the firebox included that it wasn't big enough, that it'd be easier to make it in sections and join those sections with pitch. Which, indeed, if the application didn't involve high heat, they could've, but you can't hold a firebox together with pitch. (Do I have to explain why?)

He also claimed it'd be more efficient if it were bigger. I'd pointed out that it'd look more like a sarcophagus if it were longer, too, but it wouldn't make it more efficient as a firebox, as the whole point was to produce a steam bubble large enough to get superheated by the granite slabs above it, and that it was the pressure of the superheated steam that drove the water out the King's Chamber. The baseline concept was that the granite slabs above the firebox acted as heat exchangers that integrated the heat from the burning wood (no place else for the heat to go but up) and that if they wanted more pressure, they could just burn more wood, having a bigger firebox wouldn't make the process more efficient, it'd just make it harder to build the firebox. I had derived the pumped volume of water, and the volume of the firebox *subtracts* from the pumped volume - You'd want it to be smaller, not bigger.

In several following posts, he failed to grasp that point, focusing on how *he'd* make the process "more efficient" when it was clear he didn't understand the process well enough to be improving on it. One of his statements showed he thought the point of the firebox was to heat up all the water in the King's Chamber to boil all the water in the chamber, and that showed he wasn't following the plain-English description of the baseline concept yet, and that led me to make the statement that it didn't make sense to discuss improvements to a concept that you don't understand. Maybe his feelings got hurt from that statement, but I'd explained it over and over and over, and I thought it was clear enough for him to understand it if he'd only read what I'd written.

It *is* pointless to try to improve a concept you don't understand.

He argued that designers always opt for higher efficiency, no matter what, and I pointed out that I've been on many engineering programs over the years and design solutions are generally compromises between several factors, efficiency being only one factor involved, and that few compromises leave everyone happy. You also have to consider cost and manufacturability and find the "sweet spot" where the efficiency is adequate, you can afford it, and the thing can be built. We make cost/efficiency/manufacturability trade-offs all the time. Your car would get better gas mileage if they replaced all the steel with titanium. It's lighter and stronger than steel. Why aren't cars made out of titanium? It costs an arm and a leg, and it's a b!tch to work with. Anybody want to pay an additional $50,000 for a car that gets 2 mpg better gas mileage and if you get in an accident, you'll have to spent at least $10,000 to replace a bent fender? Didn't think so.

Bottom line, MP and I were discussing the concept, and he didn't get it but kept bringing up objections that he wouldn't have brought up if he'd understood the concept, and some of his suggestions/objections were just plain dumb. It's frustrating to keep having to explain the same basic concept over and over and over again to someone who should be smart enough to understand it if he'd stop and think a minute before writing a "critique". But it was a civil dialog, and nobody was accusing anybody of dishonesty on either side, so TheDoc's assertion that his first "neg" posted against me had nothing to do with GS but was for my "dishonest debating tactics" with MP is clearly BS.

TheDoc

14th September 2008 - 04:25 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

TheDoc's assertion that his first "neg" posted against me had nothing to do with GS but was for my "dishonest debating tactics" with MP is clearly BS.

Excuse me? Where did I state that I posted a neg against you because of your discussions with MjolnirPants? Link to the post where I said so, you liar.

wcelliott

14th September 2008 - 04:54 PM

Quote from TheDoc:

QUOTE

Because I've seen your dishonest behavior on the Stonehenge thread.

And only started posting negs when I started posting negs to "Gene-Splicer".

Care to point out anything dishonest about my behavior on the Stonehenge thread, or was pointing out to MP that he didn't understand the concept (which was/probably still is, the truth) all you've got?

It isn't dishonest to say *you don't get it* when you *don't* get it.

And "GeneSplicer" - Find the quote and back up your claim that I ever said anything about providing CS to my friends prior to 9/11.

I'm anxiously awaiting your response to this one.

NEONOM

14th September 2008 - 05:28 PM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 14 2008, 03:10 AM)

Anyhow, I just wanted to point out that the whole field is WIDE OPEN

Good. You can go and spread yourself in it with the other muck, C2 and bonebonce.

wcelliott

14th September 2008 - 05:40 PM

On the off-chance that anyone here (besides RC) is interested in the special physics involved in small clusters of atoms, there are books on "quantum dots". (Quantum dots span the gap between conventional physics and quantum mechanics.)

If you want, I could lend you one of mine.

GeneSplicer

14th September 2008 - 06:48 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

I'm happy you brought this up. It gives me a perfect example of both your dishonest "debating" tactic of misrepresenting a statement and of your favorite tactic, badgering people for answers to questions that make no sense, over and over and over...

Find the quote and back up your claim that I ever said anything about providing CS to my friends prior to 9/11.

And don't try ducking this one, because I'll keep bringing it up, over and over and over, just like you did, until you do. A "taste of your own medicine".

Let me get this straight. You are challenging me to post a claim you once made after I posted it earlier?

I shall be more than happy to if only to show that I can back up my claims about what you have stated. Perhaps you will learn from this example.

Link

QUOTE

IIRC, when the Congressional Offices buildings were sent those letters containing weaponized anthrax, the clean-up crews disinfected the offices with "nanosilver hydrosol", which is just the fancy name for "colloidal silver".

I recently gave spray bottles of colloidal silver to my closest friends just prior to 9/11 this year, having heard that Al Qaida was planning "something big".

Good insurance to have, just in case, IMO.

I believe I posted this comment of yours before and you failed to address it.

And, you have claimed I have stated so many things but cannot cite where. Care to now or do you cower away again?

And again, this is a claim you posted under your name. It is not a misrepresentation, but a direct quote.

And again, it is a prime example of how I have been quoting your own posts to back up my claims.

Now that I have cited your own claim, are you going to address it or cower away from it again?

Oh, and you can try to ignore this, but I will be bringing it up over and over until you address it, especially after you made such an idiotic and poorly thought out challenge.

Again, odd how one who has bragged so often about being so intelligent and speaking with such condescension to others cannot back up your claims or in this case cannot remember exactly what it was you posted.

Care to address the other items I have mentioned now or do I get more evasions from you?

Care to address just this one?

It would be very embarrassing for you to challenge me in such a manner and when I meet your challenge, for you walk away from it.

wcelliott

14th September 2008 - 06:55 PM

QUOTE

I recently gave spray bottles of colloidal silver to my closest friends just prior to 9/11 this year, having heard that Al Qaida was planning "something big".

Not quite the same as you'd implied, that I'd given away CS to my friends before *THE 9/11*.

It was prior to the ANNIVERSARY of *THE 9/11* that I'd given the CS to my friends for, since Al Queda had hit New York on "THE 9/11", I suspected they'd hit LA on its anniversary.

If you'd read what I'd actually written, there wouldn't have been anything to badger me about.

GeneSplicer

14th September 2008 - 06:59 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 14 2008, 12:54 PM)

And "GeneSplicer" - Find the quote and back up your claim that I ever said anything about providing CS to my friends prior to 9/11.

I'm anxiously awaiting your response to this one.

Wow. No patience in waiting for me to embarrass you again? Well, I hope I have satisfied your anticipation.

And still hung up on my name I see.

Now, care to find where I have stated anything you claim I have?

Care to address the fact that you made the exact claim I stated you did?

Care to address the claim itself?

I’ll be waiting, but unlike you I realize that one should only expect a reply from someone who is actually logged into the forum.

Odd how someone who has bragged so about their intellect continues to act like such a juvenile. But again, it is your name and reputation.

GeneSplicer

14th September 2008 - 07:04 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 14 2008, 02:55 PM)

Not quite the same as you'd implied, that I'd given away CS to my friends before *THE 9/11*.

It was prior to the ANNIVERSARY of *THE 9/11* that I'd given the CS to my friends for, since Al Queda had hit New York on "THE 9/11", I suspected they'd hit LA on its anniversary.

If you'd read what I'd actually written, there wouldn't have been anything to badger me about.

And even if what you claim is true, then why did it take you so long to actually reply to it?

And that doesn’t rule out you going back and editing that post. The forum in question appears to allow modification of prior posts with not cut-off as we have here.

And your claim now is not the same as your claim then. You claim now that you suspected Al Queda would hit L.A. In your original post, you claim you “had heard” that Al Queda was planning something big.

Was this just rumors you “heard”? Why now do you change your story to “you suspected”?

And again, where are all the posts that back up what you have claimed I have stated?

And you forget I have shown you to be a liar in regards to your claims in the past. You have claimed I stated one thing or another, but I have shown one major claim to be erroneous. You posted and excuse and evaded the fact that you lied.

Quantum_Conundrum

14th September 2008 - 07:41 PM

QUOTE

How about 20 points for causing more harm? 50 if you kill someone?

At the risk of getting some points on the index, I must point out that the "medicine" put on the market today by drug companies is anything but "medicine."

Side effects may include:

vommitting
dry mouth
constipation
bleeding
sexual side effects
swelling or tenderness of breasts
dizzyness
drowsiness
heart attack
stroke

what is that called, the "hypocratic Oath"?

"First do no harm."

Yeah, it sure looks like doctors and pharmacists are following it...

wcelliott

14th September 2008 - 08:17 PM

QUOTE

So, "TheDoc", have you any differing opinions than "GeneSplicer"?

OK, since I got no response from TheDoc, I'll ask GS - Have *you* ever had any differing opinions than "TheDoc"?

And, incidentally, that quote was from a completely different forum, as you mentioned, one I've never posted a link to, here.

Who's stalking whom?

wcelliott

15th September 2008 - 12:20 AM

QUOTE

So, are you one of those intellectual elitist who thinks that a person is only intelligent if they have a formal education? Kind of sounds like that from your latest post.

OK, so you think my education is worthless because I think CS works on several otherwise dire infectious diseases.

Just curious, do you think that someone who's both an MD and a retired USAF Lt. General is also an fool for thinking that CS is worthy?

"Dear Secretary Ridge:

I would like to bring to your attention a resource that I feel can be utilized in the area of bio-defense from bio-terrorism to infectious diseases such as SARS.

The resource in question is the Anti-Microbial solution developed by American Biotech Labs in Utah. The ABL Anti-Microbial has undergone rigorous testing and has been found to kill Anthrax, Bubonic Plague, Hospital Staph, and SARS. It is the first new anti-microbial for the hospital in many years!

In addition, the ABL product is non-toxic to humans, EPA Approved (Hospital Staph & Bubonic Plague), and currently awaiting Sec 18 approval (Anthrax).

ABL's solution has shown to be a proven wide-spectrum anti-microbial/bio-decontaminant - that can be used to increase safety and functionality of healthcare facilities in the event of a bio-terror attack or infectious disease outbreak such as SARS.

In short, we currently do not have anthing with such a wide spectrum of efficacy as ABL Anti-Microbial in our inventory.
...
As such, I recommend that the ABL Anti-Microbial be evaluated for addition to the National Push-Pack stockpile.

It will make our nation a safer place to live and work!

Respectfully,
<his signature>
Paul K. Carlton, Jr., M,D., FACS
Lt. General, USAF (Ret.)
Director, Integrative Center for Homeland Security
Texas A&M University & Health Science Center"

Or do you discount his opinion *because* he's got an MD, and is a retired Lt. General?

I suspect he's smarter than both of us, but that's because I respect people who've *studied* more than I have.

GeneSplicer

15th September 2008 - 12:48 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

OK, since I got no response from TheDoc, I'll ask GS - Have *you* ever had any differing opinions than "TheDoc"?

I’m sorry, but I still do not see any link to support your claims of what I have stated here.

Care to back up your claim of what I have stated or do I prove again that you lied in that regard?

And yes wcelliott, you have lied about that in the past. You claimed I called you an imbecile. Not only did a search prove that I did not, but it revealed that I have never used the term here.

That same search revealed that you have and on more than one occasion.

So, again, you have claimed that I have stated one thing after another. Back up that claim or they are at the very least not based in fact or at worst more lies.

QUOTE

And, incidentally, that quote was from a completely different forum, as you mentioned, one I've never posted a link to, here.

And that is relevant how? Your reputation and qualifications became part of one discussion when you made yourself, your reputation and your qualification part of that discussion.

Do not confuse research with stalking.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

And, incidentally, that quote was from a completely different forum, as you mentioned, one I've never posted a link to, here.

And that is relevant how? Your reputation and qualifications became part of one discussion when you made yourself, your reputation and your qualification part of that discussion.

Do not confuse research with stalking.

Who's stalking whom?

Well, let me see. You have given me three negative feedbacks while I have given you none. One of the negatives you gave me long after our debate ended. You have followed me to this thread and you even admitted to stalking before while trying to justify it.

So, it would appear that you are stalking me.

And again, don’t forget to back up your claims about what I have stated. It appears that there are others on this forum you have also done this with and I’m sure they would also like to see the source for your claims regarding what you claim they stated.

Care to back it up or are you going to continue to avoid the topic and cower away?

I doubt in the end it would matter. Last time I illustrated just how what you claimed was a lie, you ended up just trying to justify your lying.

GeneSplicer

15th September 2008 - 01:01 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 14 2008, 08:20 PM)

OK, so you think my education is worthless because I think CS works on several otherwise dire infectious diseases.

And again, you have totally misrepresented my comment. Where did I state that your education is worthless due to your fiath in CS?

Again, you keep making claims about what I have stated yet cannot source it with fact.

You also failed to cite a source for this “letter” and it appears you have misrepresented it as well.

Again, you are trying to claim anything silver is support for colloidal silver.

And again, this letter states nothing about use internally, but as a docon agent.

The details do not support your claims about CS.

And, to correct you again, I asked specifically are you one of those intellectual elitist who thinks that a person is only intelligent if they have a formal education?

You have yet to address that question either. The list is growing ever-longer.

QUOTE

I suspect he's smarter than both of us, but that's because I respect people who've *studied* more than I have.

LOL. No you don’t. You only “respect” those who can be used or whose research can be twisted to support your hollow claims.

If study earns such respect, then those who are autodidactic would have your respect and that appears not to be true with your elitist sounding claims about formal education.

TheDoc

15th September 2008 - 02:51 AM

QUOTE (TheDoc+)

Where did I state that I posted a neg against you because of your discussions with MjolnirPants? Link to the post where I said so, you liar.

Ok, it's obvious to me now that you're never going to the link to the post where I said so - most likely 'cos it doesn't exist. That makes you either a liar or a seriously misinformed person, and I'm leaning towards the former...

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

And only started posting negs when I started posting negs to "Gene-Splicer".

Yeah, because I saw GeneSplicer refute your claims of his dishonesty in other threads, just as he is doing here.

QUOTE

Care to point out anything dishonest about my behavior on the Stonehenge thread, or was pointing out to MP that he didn't understand the concept (which was/probably still is, the truth) all you've got?

Hmm, how about the fact that he clearly and concisely refuted your assertion that his argument wasn't "well-thought-out"? I'm looking at page 8 of that thread right now, and I'm seeing him refute you point by point. In his very next post, he points out that you ignored his suggestions on how your firebox could have been built better. In your next post, you claim he doesn't understand the concept, in spite of his earlier posts where he refutes you.

You're doing the same thing in this thread that you did in the other one. You completely ignore the other person's challenges and arguments. Sometimes you don't even bother dismissing them at all. Sounds like dishonest debating to me...

MjolnirPants

15th September 2008 - 03:07 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 14 2008, 04:54 PM)

Care to point out anything dishonest about my behavior on the Stonehenge thread, or was pointing out to MP that he didn't understand the concept (which was/probably still is, the truth) all you've got?

Wrong.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=353484
Your debating style consisted almost entirely of logical fallacies. That's dishonest. To claim that I don't understand the subject because you cannot debate with any sense of integrity is beyond ridiculous. It demonstrates both your inability to engage in honest discussion as well as your ignorance of the fundamental principles of logic. The most logical argument is invariably the correct one. Without fail. Your entire argument boiled down to "How can you possibly think such large and labor-intensive structures were built as mere tombs", without any thought to the importance of the afterlife in Egyptian life. Not only did you ignore or dismiss without due consideration every single argument I produced, you ignored or dismissed without due consideration everything we know about ancient Egyptian culture in order to come to the conclusion you did. It's the very epitome of scientific 'crankiness'.
By engaging in this highly dishonest tactic of posting information both credible and dubious about the health benefits of silver nanoparticles as supposed 'evidence' of the health benefits of injesting colloidal silver (the particles of which are not nanoscale) you've proven the case of your own crankiness even more.

Suffice it to say that even though my knowledge of ancient Egypt and the pyramids is scarely even existant by the standards of Egyptologists, I still demonstrated a far better understanding of the subject than you.
In this thread, despite GS's understanding of medicine being scarcely existant in comparison to a doctor's or a research biologists, he had demonstrated a far better understanding of the subject than you.
Despite these clear facts, you still insist that you know more. This lets us know not only that you're being dishonest, emotional and immature, but that your conclusions are in every situation, highly suspect, and you can expect to see people arguing with you all the time, posting negative feedback of you, and dismissing your claims out of hand. So don't be surprised when your own behavior has consequences, it's not very indicative of high intelligence.

excaza

15th September 2008 - 03:19 AM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 14 2008, 10:07 PM)

So don't be surprised when your own behavior has consequences, it's not very indicative of high intelligence.

But but but but....LOOK AT HIS DEGREEEEEEEE

wcelliott

15th September 2008 - 05:14 AM

QUOTE

QUOTE (wcelliott @ Sep 14 2008, 04:54 PM)
Care to point out anything dishonest about my behavior on the Stonehenge thread, or was pointing out to MP that he didn't understand the concept (which was/probably still is, the truth) all you've got?

MjPants quote:
Wrong.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=353484
Your debating style consisted almost entirely of logical fallacies. That's dishonest. To claim that I don't understand the subject because you cannot debate with any sense of integrity is beyond ridiculous. It

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

QUOTE (wcelliott @ Sep 14 2008, 04:54 PM)
Care to point out anything dishonest about my behavior on the Stonehenge thread, or was pointing out to MP that he didn't understand the concept (which was/probably still is, the truth) all you've got?

MjPants quote:
Wrong.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=353484
Your debating style consisted almost entirely of logical fallacies. That's dishonest. To claim that I don't understand the subject because you cannot debate with any sense of integrity is beyond ridiculous. It

QUOTE (scribecr @ Jun 29 2008, 04:29 AM)
This post got way off topic. It was supposed to be about NEWS, and Stonehenge, not the Great Pyramid.
I recommended this site to someone who has studied ancient megaliths and written about them in various journals, and now after reading the rudely ad hominem and illiterate comments in this thread I am embarrassed to have done so. I hoped this topic would provide some educational and articulate correspondence which would attract real and courteous thinkers. Regardless of your scorn for his opinion, Hammerhead, WCElliott wins outright in that regard.

From MjPants:
Son, I don't know where yer issue is, but fer you to sit here an accuse me o bein "rudely [insulting] an illiterate" as well as scornful does nothin but prove ya never even took the time to read this thread. Yer prolly somebody's sockpuppet

From MjPants:

QUOTE

Your debating style consisted almost entirely of logical fallacies. That's dishonest. To claim that I don't understand the subject because you cannot debate with any sense of integrity is beyond ridiculous. It demonstrates both your inability to engage in honest discussion as well as your ignorance of the fundamental principles of logic. The most logical argument is invariably the correct one. Without fail. Your entire argument boiled down to "How can you possibly think such large and labor-intensive structures were built as mere tombs", without any thought to the importance of the afterlife in Egyptian life. Not only did you ignore or dismiss without due consideration every single argument I produced, you ignored or dismissed without due consideration everything we know about ancient Egyptian culture in order to come to the conclusion you did. It's the very epitome of scientific 'crankiness'.

Son, I think I know where yer issue comes from, an it ain't got nothin to do with me. It does, however, show part of the problem we had in that there "debate".

Look real, real close to who posted that middle post. (I made it easy, I posted it in red.)

For the record, HE isn't a sockpuppet of mine. I never heard of him before, and I didn't agree with what he said about the thread.

For the rest of you, please note how MjPants went from his "Aw shucks writin stile" to "It demonstrates both your inability to engage in honest discussion as well as your ignorance of the fundamental principles of logic."

Gee, is it just me, or does it suddenly sound like something GS/TheDoc would write?

If you'd really like, I'm still interested in the pyramids, and I could go through each and every *other* misconception you posted. (Like the Pharaoh supposedly buried in that Pyramid wasn't a child, but a fully-grown adult. If they buried him in that "sarcophagus", it'd have been with his legs bent, something never seen before nor since in *any* mummified pharaoh. As a firebox, though, it'd have to be cut from a single block of granite because it'd have to stand up to the pressure spike which would blow-apart any assembly, especially if they glued it together with pitch, which melts and burns.) I wasn't ignoring the dumbest comments because you had me stumped, I was trying to avoid sounding sarcastic by pointing out obvious answers to dumb questions. It was, as I'd pointed out in the next post, one of the more civil discussions I've had in this forum.

My first post following "scribecr's" rant:

"As for the other issue, I didn't take much offense from anyone's posts here, nor was I deliberately trying to offend anyone. Some questions I don't bother answering because I feel I've already answered them, and sometimes I don't bother pointing-out obvious answers to questions that I feel someone should be able to figure out on their own. There's a thin line between answering an obvious question with an obvious answer and *sarcasm*, and in print, it's difficult to spot the difference. I'm quite happy to drop the pyramids thread, and leave it as honestly differing opinions between me and whoever thinks otherwise. I don't have stock in the "Pyramid Reservoir" theory, my only interest is that some new finding in the field will support my theory and I'll have "primed the pump" (pun intended) and people will realize that maybe I'm right after all.

Peace."

I didn't respond angrily, because I'd assumed you were venting at "scribecr", whom I don't know and don't care about one way or the other.

NEONOM

15th September 2008 - 10:06 AM

Anyone who signs off with "Peace" is obviously a tosser.

GeneSplicer

15th September 2008 - 01:11 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

Gee, is it just me, or does it suddenly sound like something GS/TheDoc would write?

So now I have two other accounts instead of just one?!

Could you be any more laughable at this point?

And again, I’m still waiting for you to cite exactly where it was I stated what you claim I have stated.

Care to find those sources or were they more lies on your part?

MjolnirPants

15th September 2008 - 01:25 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 15 2008, 05:14 AM)

Son, I think I know where yer issue comes from, an it ain't got nothin to do with me. It does, however, show part of the problem we had in that there "debate".

So mockery is your choice, now? Instead of logically refuting my claims, you mock me. That's an ad hominem, another logical fallacy.

QUOTE

For the record, HE isn't a sockpuppet of mine. I never heard of him before, and I didn't agree with what he said about the thread.

I never accused you of having a sockpuppet. Why so defensive?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

For the record, HE isn't a sockpuppet of mine. I never heard of him before, and I didn't agree with what he said about the thread.

I never accused you of having a sockpuppet. Why so defensive?

For the rest of you, please note how MjPants went from his "Aw shucks writin stile" to "It demonstrates both your inability to engage in honest discussion as well as your ignorance of the fundamental principles of logic."

So I went from representing my natural accept in text to not doing so. Look through my posting history. All accent aside, I've always attempted to express myself clearly. What difference does it make? None.

QUOTE

Gee, is it just me, or does it suddenly sound like something GS/TheDoc would write?

Ahh, paranoia does not help your cause, son...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Gee, is it just me, or does it suddenly sound like something GS/TheDoc would write?

Ahh, paranoia does not help your cause, son...

If you'd really like, I'm still interested in the pyramids, and I could go through each and every *other* misconception you posted.

Does that mean you'll just keep repeating erroneous claims about what I have and haven't addressed? Does that mean you'll keep posting claims after I refute them? Does that mean continuing to respond to logical arguments with logical fallacies? No, thanks.

QUOTE

(Like the Pharaoh supposedly buried in that Pyramid wasn't a child, but a fully-grown adult.

How tall was he?

Also, I believe you ignored this:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

(Like the Pharaoh supposedly buried in that Pyramid wasn't a child, but a fully-grown adult.

How tall was he?

Also, I believe you ignored this:
Coulda been meant fer a young'un. Coulda been meant fer a 3/4 scale likeness. Coulda been meant to stay empty, representing their pharoahs' immortality. Who's to say? Firebox or functional sarcophagus ain't the only two options.

QUOTE

If they buried him in that "sarcophagus", it'd have been with his legs bent, something never seen before nor since in *any* mummified pharaoh. As a firebox, though, it'd have to be cut from a single block of granite because it'd have to stand up to the pressure spike which would blow-apart any assembly, especially if they glued it together with pitch, which melts and burns.)

But you're assuming a pressure spike in order to explain it. You're assuming you're correct in order to argue your case. Circular logic.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

If they buried him in that "sarcophagus", it'd have been with his legs bent, something never seen before nor since in *any* mummified pharaoh. As a firebox, though, it'd have to be cut from a single block of granite because it'd have to stand up to the pressure spike which would blow-apart any assembly, especially if they glued it together with pitch, which melts and burns.)

But you're assuming a pressure spike in order to explain it. You're assuming you're correct in order to argue your case. Circular logic.

I wasn't ignoring the dumbest comments because you had me stumped, I was trying to avoid sounding sarcastic by pointing out obvious answers to dumb questions.

Dumb questions like "Why would the Egyptians waste so much time and effort on building a tomb? Isn't it more likely that they were building a public service facility?" which is what your argument boils down to... (Not a direct quote)

QUOTE

It was, as I'd pointed out in the next post, one of the more civil discussions I've had in this forum.

That wasn't you, that was barakn. Taking credit for other people's posts, are we?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

It was, as I'd pointed out in the next post, one of the more civil discussions I've had in this forum.

That wasn't you, that was barakn. Taking credit for other people's posts, are we?

I didn't respond angrily, because I'd assumed you were venting at "scribecr", whom I don't know and don't care about one way or the other.

No, I was confronting scriberc. There's a big difference between venting and confronting. He said some stupid things, I called him out on them, he failed to respond.

wcelliott

15th September 2008 - 07:57 PM

QUOTE

No, I was confronting scriberc.

That was what I'd originally assumed, but at the end of your confrontation, you accused him of being a sockpuppet, so when you accused me of being dishonest in *this* thread, I interpreted it as meaning that you thought "scribecr" as being a sockpupped of *mine*. I'd considered it to be an honest disagreement being discussed in a civil manner, as I'd described in the post following "Scribecr's" post, explaining why I hadn't responded to each and every objection you raised.

Do you have a reference for Khufu being unusually short?

The short "sarcophagus" is consistent with an adequate-sized firebox for making sufficient steam when the water level rose to spill-over its edge, and the granite slabs above it would've been plenty hot to superheat the steam created and thereby increase the pressure inside to sufficiently high levels to push the ambient-temperature water out through the "airvents", one aimed towards the upper levels of the croplands at the base of the Giza Plateau (which would've dried out first, and been hardest to irrigate from the Nile) and the other aimed west, to the land that wasn't normally considered cropland because it was never flooded, but was sufficently fertile for growing crops if irrigated. Nowhere in the concept was the notion that the firebox supposed to boil all the water in the King's Chamber. Only the water that spilled over the edge of the firebox would've been turned to steam, and that steam superheated by the heat stored in the granite slabs above the firebox. The key concept is that the granite slabs above the firebox *stored* the heat from the fire, and was used to superheat the steam and thereby create a high-pressure bubble of steam at high pressure acting on the surface of the lukewarm water in the King's Chamber. Storing the fire's heat meant that the fire could be burning for a long time, and could, conceivably, be re-stoked by the guy who drew the short straw who'd take refuge in the antechamber, which had features which were consistent with a door with a seal to protect him from the steam bubble when it formed.

I must say, I thought we were in a civil discussion over a technical subject. I re-read the whole thread, and considered ot an honest disagreement over the technical issues when "Scribecr" posted his rant, and I found nothing that could be considered "dishonesty" on either side. I had no ill-will towerds you for askig the questions/objections you posed. It just seemed that a lot of the questions I answered weren't getting through to you, and that a lot of the questions posed could've been figured out on your own if you'd given them more thought. Aside from that, I felt it was an amicable exchange of views, and I didn't want to offend you with answers that would've sounded sarcastic.

GeneSplicer

15th September 2008 - 08:59 PM

I’m still waiting for you to cite exactly where it was I stated what you claim I have stated.

Bloy

15th September 2008 - 09:11 PM

QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 15 2008, 04:06 AM)

Anyone who signs off with "Peace" is obviously a tosser.

....just another shot in the dark, neonom. What great observations might your feeble mind gather for output next!?

Good thing you only have a pea-shooter for your mindless inappropriate offensive remarks.

NEONOM

15th September 2008 - 11:32 PM

QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 15 2008, 09:11 PM)

....just another shot in the dark, neonom. What great observations might your feeble mind gather for output next!?

Good thing you only have a pea-shooter for your mindless inappropriate offensive remarks.

Here's a great observation for ya. You've been here nearly 3 years amassed a huge points total of -42 and done nothing but spewed cretinous slush in all that time. And now you have the barefaced gall to reply to a thread titled "The crackpot index".

Feel at home?

TheDoc

16th September 2008 - 01:57 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 15 2008, 05:14 AM)

For the rest of you, please note how MjPants went from his "Aw shucks writin stile" to "It demonstrates both your inability to engage in honest discussion as well as your ignorance of the fundamental principles of logic."

Gee, is it just me, or does it suddenly sound like something GS/TheDoc would write?

MjolnirPants dropped the accent weeks ago, you idiot.

If you're going to accuse me of having sockpuppets, you'd better make sure said accusations have some real proof to go with them.

RealityCheck

16th September 2008 - 03:12 AM

QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 16 2008, 01:57 AM)

MjolnirPants dropped the accent weeks ago, you idiot.

If you're going to accuse me of having sockpuppets, you'd better make sure said accusations have some real proof to go with them.

Hehehe. Hi TheDoc. For a nanosecond there, I thought you said "MjolnirPants dropped his pants", hehehe. It's OK.....it didn't make it through! hehehe. Cheers, TD, MjP!

PS: I'm more than usually in the mood for good-natured fun, in case you hadn't noticed! hehehe.

RC.
.

wcelliott

16th September 2008 - 03:55 AM

I've posed the same question to "both" of you, TheDoc and GeneSplicer, neither of you responded to.

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.

GeneSplicer

16th September 2008 - 01:28 PM

Not so quick wcelliott.

You have been asked multiple times to back up your claims regarding what you claim I have stated.

Before you go off making more irrelevant demands, you first have to address this.

Where is the source for the claims you have stated I have made on this forum?

If you cannot back up your claims regarding this, your tangent questions and continued pleading amount to naught, other than a painful obvious attempt by you to once again cower away from and backing up your claims with something other than your hollow word.

MjolnirPants

16th September 2008 - 02:01 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 15 2008, 07:57 PM)

That was what I'd originally assumed, but at the end of your confrontation, you accused him of being a sockpuppet, so when you accused me of being dishonest in *this* thread, I interpreted it as meaning that you thought "scribecr" as being a sockpupped of *mine*.

Yup. Textbook defensiveness. That's the kind of defensiveness you usually see only when someone's hiding something. What are you hiding, wcelliot?

QUOTE

Do you have a reference for Khufu being unusually short?

Do you have a reference for him being average height?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Do you have a reference for Khufu being unusually short?

Do you have a reference for him being average height?

The short "sarcophagus" is consistent with an adequate-sized firebox for making sufficient steam when the water level rose to spill-over its edge, and the granite slabs above it would've been plenty hot to superheat the steam created and thereby increase the pressure inside to sufficiently high levels to push the ambient-temperature water out through the "airvents", one aimed towards the upper levels of the croplands at the base of the Giza Plateau (which would've dried out first, and been hardest to irrigate from the Nile) and the other aimed west, to the land that wasn't normally considered cropland because it was never flooded, but was sufficently fertile for growing crops if irrigated.

Great. Find some evidence of the canals which carried this water as well as some evidence that this land was used as farmland. It's remarkably easy to determine the latter with a simple broad-spectrum sattalite photograph of the area, something which was recently done quite thoroughly. Be sure to post your response in that thread, as it's more pertinant to that discussion than this one.

QUOTE

Nowhere in the concept was the notion that the firebox supposed to boil all the water in the King's Chamber. Only the water that spilled over the edge of the firebox would've been turned to steam, and that steam superheated by the heat stored in the granite slabs above the firebox. The key concept is that the granite slabs above the firebox *stored* the heat from the fire, and was used to superheat the steam and thereby create a high-pressure bubble of steam at high pressure acting on the surface of the lukewarm water in the King's Chamber. Storing the fire's heat meant that the fire could be burning for a long time, and could, conceivably, be re-stoked by the guy who drew the short straw who'd take refuge in the antechamber, which had features which were consistent with a door with a seal to protect him from the steam bubble when it formed.

All of that is ridiculously complicated in comparison to a water tower, which could have easily been constructed using ancient Egyptian technology. I guess them Pharoahs had a thing for Rube Goldberg, eh?

Again, be sure to post your response in the appropriate thread.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Nowhere in the concept was the notion that the firebox supposed to boil all the water in the King's Chamber. Only the water that spilled over the edge of the firebox would've been turned to steam, and that steam superheated by the heat stored in the granite slabs above the firebox. The key concept is that the granite slabs above the firebox *stored* the heat from the fire, and was used to superheat the steam and thereby create a high-pressure bubble of steam at high pressure acting on the surface of the lukewarm water in the King's Chamber. Storing the fire's heat meant that the fire could be burning for a long time, and could, conceivably, be re-stoked by the guy who drew the short straw who'd take refuge in the antechamber, which had features which were consistent with a door with a seal to protect him from the steam bubble when it formed.

All of that is ridiculously complicated in comparison to a water tower, which could have easily been constructed using ancient Egyptian technology. I guess them Pharoahs had a thing for Rube Goldberg, eh?

Again, be sure to post your response in the appropriate thread.

I must say, I thought we were in a civil discussion over a technical subject.

It was, and it was quite civil by the standards of this forum on both sides. The problem is that it was quite logical on my side alone, and more civil on my side, on top of that. You consistantly resorted to fallacies and selective 'listening' to continue your argument, all the while making offensive comments about my intelligence.

QUOTE

I re-read the whole thread, and considered ot an honest disagreement over the technical issues when "Scribecr" posted his rant, and I found nothing that could be considered "dishonesty" on either side.

Of course you didn't. Most people don't examine themselves critically they way scientists and people like me do. Naturally, you would refuse to accept any dishonesty on your part.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I re-read the whole thread, and considered ot an honest disagreement over the technical issues when "Scribecr" posted his rant, and I found nothing that could be considered "dishonesty" on either side.

Of course you didn't. Most people don't examine themselves critically they way scientists and people like me do. Naturally, you would refuse to accept any dishonesty on your part.

I had no ill-will towerds you for askig the questions/objections you posed.

Yet you still felt the need to speculate about my lack of intelligence... Odd...

QUOTE

It just seemed that a lot of the questions I answered weren't getting through to you, and that a lot of the questions posed could've been figured out on your own if you'd given them more thought.

I'm sure it seemed that way to you. However, things are not always what they seem to be. For instance: Why do you continue to ignore the two additional reasons for a short sarcophagus I posited? Why haven't you figured out on your own that it might not have been either a firebox or a sarcophagus?
(Remember which is the appropriate thread.

)

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

It just seemed that a lot of the questions I answered weren't getting through to you, and that a lot of the questions posed could've been figured out on your own if you'd given them more thought.

I'm sure it seemed that way to you. However, things are not always what they seem to be. For instance: Why do you continue to ignore the two additional reasons for a short sarcophagus I posited? Why haven't you figured out on your own that it might not have been either a firebox or a sarcophagus?
(Remember which is the appropriate thread.

)

Aside from that, I felt it was an amicable exchange of views, and I didn't want to offend you with answers that would've sounded sarcastic.

You say this, yet you made offensive statements like "I think I've wasted enough effort trying to explain this concept." and "I didn't bother addressing them because I didn't think they were that well-thought-out." and "Since you haven't demonstrated any understanding of how the baseline concept works, discussing how to build them *better* would be pointless."
Odd, when describing your participation in that thread, you paint a very different picture than your actual participation does. There's a word for that:
Dishonesty.

bm1957

16th September 2008 - 02:22 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 16 2008, 04:55 AM)

I've posed the same question to "both" of you, TheDoc and GeneSplicer, neither of you responded to.

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.

Is there any subject in which you aren't an expert? It should be easy to back-up, just find a link which shows you changing your opinion about something.

I've seen you pose as an expert in a number of subjects, WC, but your arguments are always conspicuously lacking. First lasers, now egyptology, pagan rituals and bio-medicine. There's a bit of a pattern emerging...

wcelliott

16th September 2008 - 06:55 PM

QUOTE

Is there any subject in which you aren't an expert? It should be easy to back-up, just find a link which shows you changing your opinion about something.

I don't post on topics that I don't have an opinion on, and I don't have opinions without reasons to back them up.

The proof is in the selectivity of the posts which I reply to (and don't reply to).

And I've already posted the link where you can find the letter from the MD/USAF Lt. General (ret.) to Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security, who believes as I do that CS (ABL's product, sold at GNC for internal consumption) can cure ANTHRAX, BUBONIC PLAGUE, SARS, MALARIA, etc.. It's towards the bottom of the page that has a transcription of TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS.

Tell me that you think this MD/Lt. General (ret.) is a "crackpot".

GeneSplicer

16th September 2008 - 07:19 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 16 2008, 02:55 PM)

I don't post on topics that I don't have an opinion on, and I don't have opinions without reasons to back them up.

The proof is in the selectivity of the posts which I reply to (and don't reply to).

And I've already posted the link where you can find the letter from the MD/USAF Lt. General (ret.) to Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security, who believes as I do that CS (ABL's product, sold at GNC for internal consumption) can cure ANTHRAX, BUBONIC PLAGUE, SARS, MALARIA, etc.. It's towards the bottom of the page that has a transcription of TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS.

Tell me that you think this MD/Lt. General is a "crackpot".

And that is a lie. He did not state that CS can cure anything.

bm1957

16th September 2008 - 07:22 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 16 2008, 07:55 PM)

I don't post on topics that I don't have an opinion on, and I don't have opinions without reasons to back them up.

Opinions are not the same as expertise. You've never once changed an opinion (as far as I've seen; one link is all I asked for), so either you believe you're an expert in all these fields, or you're just very obstinate.

QUOTE

And I've already posted the link where you can find the letter from the MD/USAF Lt. General (ret.) to Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security, who believes as I do that CS (ABL's product, sold at GNC for internal consumption) can cure ANTHRAX, BUBONIC PLAGUE, SARS, MALARIA, etc.. It's towards the bottom of the page that has a transcription of TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS.

Good for you. I never actually argued against any of that, did I?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

And I've already posted the link where you can find the letter from the MD/USAF Lt. General (ret.) to Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security, who believes as I do that CS (ABL's product, sold at GNC for internal consumption) can cure ANTHRAX, BUBONIC PLAGUE, SARS, MALARIA, etc.. It's towards the bottom of the page that has a transcription of TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS.

Good for you. I never actually argued against any of that, did I?

Tell me that you think this MD/Lt. General is a "crackpot".

Why would I do that? I don't even know who he is. A strawman argument won't win you any points if you make it as obvious as this.

wcelliott

16th September 2008 - 07:41 PM

QUOTE

so either you believe you're an expert in all these fields, or you're just very obstinate.

Or the counterarguments posted are unconvincing, unsupported by facts, and/or stupid.

NEONOM

16th September 2008 - 08:01 PM

Face it, toilet, your a crank. More textbook defensiveness.

GeneSplicer

16th September 2008 - 09:00 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 16 2008, 03:41 PM)

Or the counterarguments posted are unconvincing, unsupported by facts, and/or stupid.

In more than just one thread, you have ignored counter arguments. And as far as supporting your claims, you have yet to do so.

Again, you continually misrepresent sources to support your claims and when called on such deception, you either move onto other subjects or ignore the fact that you have been misrepresenting these sources.

And posting more insults is not support for your claims, unless of course you think you are an expert and people here should not challenge your unsubstantiated claims.

TheDoc

16th September 2008 - 09:09 PM

QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Sep 16 2008, 09:00 PM)

Again, you continually misrepresent sources to support your claims and when called on such deception, you either move onto other subjects or ignore the fact that you have been misrepresenting these sources.

I think it's worth noting that he did exactly what you're describing when I pointed out that I wasn't giving you positives every time he gave you a negative.

QUOTE (TheDoc+ September 12, 2008)

Going through GeneSplicer's feedback, one can see that you have given him four negatives since July 21, with three of my positives squeezed in between. What you convienently forget to mention is that my first positive to GeneSplicer during that period came nine days after your negative, and cited a post that had nothing to do with your discussions with him. I only began to touch on your discussions with him with my second positive.

He never responded to that. Most mysterious?

wcelliott

17th September 2008 - 12:20 AM

QUOTE

QUOTE (TheDoc @ September 12, 2008)
Going through GeneSplicer's feedback, one can see that you have given him four negatives since July 21, with three of my positives squeezed in between. What you convienently forget to mention is that my first positive to GeneSplicer during that period came nine days after your negative, and cited a post that had nothing to do with your discussions with him. I only began to touch on your discussions with him with my second positive.

Which was *AFTER* the post "TheDoc" started, but he never bothered commenting on after starting the thread which he *now* claims I argued dishonestly on.

As I stated before, the prior time you posted this unsubstatiated claim.

And, as I'd stated before, I tend to ignore the really stupid comments/questions because it's difficult to tell the difference between responding to a stupid question with an obvious answer and sarcasm, where the obviousness of the answer is deliberately intended to insult someone for asking a stupid question by giving an obvious answer. For instance, not pointing out how stupid it is to suggest that you could hold a firebox together with pitch, which melts and burns.

Or arguing with someone who takes issue with the statement that "Silver is silver".

GeneSplicer

17th September 2008 - 01:06 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 16 2008, 08:20 PM)

Or arguing with someone who takes issue with the statement that "Silver is silver".

Wow. You really are a coward. And evidently a dishonest one to boot.

Besides being unable to back up your claims regarding what I have stated and being able to back up your claims about colloidal silver snake oil you actually try to make the ridiculous claim that silver is silver?

Even some of your fellow snake oil supporters do not make such a blatantly false and laughable claim that silver is silver.

So it appears that in all of your education and expertise, chemistry is not one of them.

So, care to address you litany of lies and misrepresentations yet?

How about we take your misrepresentation of the recent posted “evidence” regarding colloidal silver?

Why does your claim that the good doctor claims that CS cures the listed diseases, toxins and the like is not found in the document itself?

That doesn’t even begin to address the fact that the site you referenced claims that sugar is an addictive toxin and they also are HIV/AIDS deniers.

Odd you would choose to pick such a site as a source, unless of course my other claim that you are a conspiracy theory supporter is fact.

So how long before you start stalking TheDoc? How about Grumpy, NEONOM, bm1957 and MjolnirPants or anyone else who has and continues to disagree with you as I have?

How long before you start to cower away from them?

I don’t think any of us have ever disagreed on this forum, so according to your childish reasoning, we all must be the same person.

GeneSplicer

17th September 2008 - 03:07 AM

I forgot to mention, or rather ask, another question. I’m sure you will ignore this one as well.

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?

TheDoc

17th September 2008 - 04:09 AM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

Which was *AFTER* the post "TheDoc" started, but he never bothered commenting on after starting the thread which he *now* claims I argued dishonestly on.

Nice shot at trying to avoid my rebuttal, you faker. Care to explain what my Stonhenge thread has to do with me giving GeneSplicer a positive for a post unrelated to his discussions with you?

QUOTE

And, as I'd stated before, I tend to ignore the really stupid comments/questions because it's difficult to tell the difference between responding to a stupid question with an obvious answer and sarcasm <snipped>

Don't lie to me. You ignored it because you got caught in a lie, and I proved it. You claimed that I was giving GeneSplicer a bunch of positives because you had given him negatives. I demonstrated this to be false and you haven't touched on the issue since.

That is making an unsubstantiated claim. That is dishonest debating. Making an idiotic statement and then ignoring a direct refutation of it. You are getting quite good at both.

wcelliott

17th September 2008 - 05:10 AM

Quote from GeneSplicer:

QUOTE

Why does your claim that the good doctor claims that CS cures the listed diseases, toxins and the like is not found in the document itself?

Since when did I ever claim it ever did anything for toxins?

Which on the list "ANTHRAX, BUBONIC PLAGUE, SARS, MALARIA" is a TOXIN?

And you have the gall to question *MY KNOWLEDGE* of biotech?

Oh, and nice STALKING, tracing my computer back to my place of business. HYPOCRITE!

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Why does your claim that the good doctor claims that CS cures the listed diseases, toxins and the like is not found in the document itself?

Since when did I ever claim it ever did anything for toxins?

Which on the list "ANTHRAX, BUBONIC PLAGUE, SARS, MALARIA" is a TOXIN?

And you have the gall to question *MY KNOWLEDGE* of biotech?

Oh, and nice STALKING, tracing my computer back to my place of business. HYPOCRITE!

You claimed that I was giving GeneSplicer a bunch of positives because you had given him negatives. I demonstrated this to be false and you haven't touched on the issue since.

It's all right there in the record. You never posted anything on the Stonehenge thread after opening it (unless it was under the screenname of MjolrPants), which was, for the most part, a civil dialog, but you started posting Negs on me AFTER I started posting Negs on GeneSplicer for dishonest "debating" tactcs. I stated the obvious, and moved on. (But you two *are* sounding exactly the same these days.)

But this isn't a debate, this is me posting out the fact that you can buy "Colloidal Silver" from a vitamin store and it's the same stuff they proved clinically to CURE MALARIA in AFRICA and was recommended to be stockpiled by the Department of Homeland Security in case of a bioterrorist ANTHRAX or BUBONIC PLAGUE attack by a retired USAF Lt. General who also happens to be a Medical Doctor. Do you think *you're* smarter than *he* is? (I've asked that question before, and you've ducked it.) (And once again, for the record, I still don't recommend that brand or that vitamin store, as their prices are too high.)

And let me get this straight - I'm supposed to waste time "debating" someone who takes issue with the statement "Silver is silver"?

That's called "the Identity principle" in logic, and it's the first formal rule of logic (which, unlike you, I took in college). Without it, no logical argument can be considered valid.

SILVER *IS* SILVER.

Maybe you can't understand that because you've got so many different screennames that you've got multiple personality disorder, but there's only one element in the periodic table of elements called "silver" and that's because there's only one element called "silver", and that's the same silver that's in jewelry and on various FDA-Approved Wound Care products where *THEY* state that it kills MRSA, "all relevant pathogens," fungi and viruses.

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

RealityCheck

17th September 2008 - 05:59 AM

.
For clarification purposes to forum observers at large:

The toxin is PRODUCED by the relevant baccilus. The baccilus itself is not the toxin. Kill/forestall the bacillus/production itself, and you prevent the toxin being produced by the baccilus and being ingested by the INFECTED human host/cells. The toxin can be extracted from a culture of baccilus and used AS A TOXIN per se. That vain "Botox" treatment for '"wrinkled skin" comes to mind! hehehe.

Cheers all!

RC.
.

GeneSplicer

17th September 2008 - 01:19 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+)

Since when did I ever claim it ever did anything for toxins?

Which on the list "ANTHRAX, BUBONIC PLAGUE, SARS, MALARIA" is a TOXIN?

Being intellectually dishonest again I see. RC has already addressed this point, but let me go into more detail.

Your article also mentioned Hospital Staph (Staphylococcus aureu).

http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/staph.html

QUOTE

Staphylococcus aureus causes a variety of suppurative (pus-forming) infections and toxinoses in humans. It causes superficial skin lesions such as boils, styes and furunculosis; more serious infections such as pneumonia, mastitis, phlebitis, meningitis, and urinary tract infections; and deep-seated infections, such as osteomyelitis and endocarditis. S. aureus is a major cause of hospital acquired (nosocomial) infection of surgical wounds and infections associated with indwelling medical devices. S. aureus causes food poisoning by releasing enterotoxins into food, and toxic shock syndrome by release of superantigens into the blood stream.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Staphylococcus aureus causes a variety of suppurative (pus-forming) infections and toxinoses in humans. It causes superficial skin lesions such as boils, styes and furunculosis; more serious infections such as pneumonia, mastitis, phlebitis, meningitis, and urinary tract infections; and deep-seated infections, such as osteomyelitis and endocarditis. S. aureus is a major cause of hospital acquired (nosocomial) infection of surgical wounds and infections associated with indwelling medical devices. S. aureus causes food poisoning by releasing enterotoxins into food, and toxic shock syndrome by release of superantigens into the blood stream.

S. aureus expresses many potential virulence factors: (1) surface proteins that promote colonization of host tissues; (2) invasins that promote bacterial spread in tissues (leukocidin, kinases, hyaluronidase); (3) surface factors that inhibit phagocytic engulfment (capsule, Protein A); (4) biochemical properties that enhance their survival in phagocytes (carotenoids, catalase production); (5) immunological disguises (Protein A, coagulase, clotting factor); and (6) membrane-damaging toxins that lyse eukaryotic cell membranes (hemolysins, leukotoxin, leukocidin; (7) exotoxins that damage host tissues or otherwise provoke symptoms of disease (SEA-G, TSST, ET (8) inherent and acquired resistance to antimicrobial agents.

Why would someone who has bragged about their biotech knowledge not know that Staph releases toxins?

QUOTE

And you have the gall to question *MY KNOWLEDGE* of biotech?

Yes, yes I do especially when you claim, and keep claiming, that doctors are stating that colloidal silver cures whatever you care to claim is does.

Again, cite in the recent article where the good doctor stated that colloidal silver cured anything. Odd how you can’t.

And, you claim that colloidal silver is a cure for maladies like Hospital Staph. To cure staff, CS would also have to address the toxins Staph produces.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

And you have the gall to question *MY KNOWLEDGE* of biotech?

Yes, yes I do especially when you claim, and keep claiming, that doctors are stating that colloidal silver cures whatever you care to claim is does.

Again, cite in the recent article where the good doctor stated that colloidal silver cured anything. Odd how you can’t.

And, you claim that colloidal silver is a cure for maladies like Hospital Staph. To cure staff, CS would also have to address the toxins Staph produces.

Oh, and nice STALKING, tracing my computer back to my place of business. HYPOCRITE!

You still don’t understand do you. Again, odd how such a self-professed genius does not understand the ramifications of their actions online.

I told you before that once you started preaching your faith about colloidal silver that I did a search for your user name. It is a common practice due to the fact that people like you tend to go from forum to forum doing the same thing and preaching the same thing. And in your case, it was illustrated that you have and continue to do exactly that.

Furthermore, when I was researching a cite to link to the other night to illustrate just how even manufacturers of NSH claim that what they produce is not CS, I found more hits with your user name posted at websites for medical discussion and support for illnesses.

One such post had you’re the first three octets of your IP address listed. So, yes, I looked it up. The entire IP range is owned by one company. Care to guess which one?

So If I doing simple and standard research for a debate found this information due to your prolific posting online, you can hardly blame me.

Again, you simply do not consider or fathom the ramifications of your actions.

QUOTE

But this isn't a debate, this is me posting out the fact that you can buy "Colloidal Silver" from a vitamin store and it's the same stuff they proved clinically to CURE MALARIA in AFRICA

As cited on a forum for a podcast. No research, peer reviewed or otherwise, posted.

And, no, this is a debate. If all you want to do is preach about CS snake oil, then go to another forum. Here your unsubstantiated claims will be challenged.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

But this isn't a debate, this is me posting out the fact that you can buy "Colloidal Silver" from a vitamin store and it's the same stuff they proved clinically to CURE MALARIA in AFRICA

As cited on a forum for a podcast. No research, peer reviewed or otherwise, posted.

And, no, this is a debate. If all you want to do is preach about CS snake oil, then go to another forum. Here your unsubstantiated claims will be challenged.

and was recommended to be stockpiled by the Department of Homeland Security in case of a bioterrorist ANTHRAX or BUBONIC PLAGUE attack by a retired USAF Lt. General who also happens to be a Medical Doctor.

As a DECON agent, not for internal use and not to “cure” anything as you continue to erroneously claim.

QUOTE

Do you think *you're* smarter than *he* is?

No, but you are misrepresenting what he stated. Again, cite where the good doctor claimed that CS cured anything.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Do you think *you're* smarter than *he* is?

No, but you are misrepresenting what he stated. Again, cite where the good doctor claimed that CS cured anything.

And let me get this straight - I'm supposed to waste time "debating" someone who takes issue with the statement "Silver is silver"?

No, you would have to prove your laughable claim true. Just because you keep stating that “silver is silver” does not make it true.

And considering how you have and continue to misrepresent sources, your credibility is highly questionable.

QUOTE

That's called "the Identity principle" in logic, and it's the first formal rule of logic (which, unlike you, I took in college). Without it, no logical argument can be considered valid.

Wow. Another formal education reference. Still trying not to claim to be an intellectual elitists?

Isn’t it the Principle of Identity not the Identity Principle?

And how does that law of thought relate to your misrepresentations or unsupported claim that “silver is silver”?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

That's called "the Identity principle" in logic, and it's the first formal rule of logic (which, unlike you, I took in college). Without it, no logical argument can be considered valid.

Wow. Another formal education reference. Still trying not to claim to be an intellectual elitists?

Isn’t it the Principle of Identity not the Identity Principle?

And how does that law of thought relate to your misrepresentations or unsupported claim that “silver is silver”?

SILVER *IS* SILVER.

You can keep repeating it all you like, yell, use whatever color highlight you like, but it still remains an unsubstantiated claim when it comes to the medical research cited.

QUOTE

Maybe you can't understand that because you've got so many different screennames that you've got multiple personality disorder,

Wow. You cannot back up your claim so you resort to more personal insults? Is that how all intellectuals of your caliber debate?

And you still have nothing but your paranoia to support any claim that I have more than one account here.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Maybe you can't understand that because you've got so many different screennames that you've got multiple personality disorder,

Wow. You cannot back up your claim so you resort to more personal insults? Is that how all intellectuals of your caliber debate?

And you still have nothing but your paranoia to support any claim that I have more than one account here.

but there's only one element in the periodic table of elements called "silver" and that's because there's only one element called "silver",

So I guess chemistry is not one of your fields of expertise.

Using your reasoning, oxygen is oxygen and it matters not how it is bonded with any other elements. So this means that you should be able to breath and survive on nothing but CO2. You should also be able to breathe ozone (O3). All that research claiming that ozone can damage your lungs must be erroneous. After all, oxygen is oxygen and there in only one oxygen on the period table.

QUOTE

and that's the same silver that's in jewelry and on various FDA-Approved Wound Care products where *THEY* state that it kills MRSA, "all relevant pathogens," fungi and viruses.

And again, you totally misrepresent legitimate medical research.

So, again, using your reasoning that silver is sivler, if a person had an MRSA infect, I should be able to just put silver jewelry onto the wound and it would be cured. After all, silver is silver.

Or I could grind up some pure silver coins, put that on a dressing and use that dressing to cure MRSA. Again, using your reasoning, silver is silver.

And let us not forget that, according to you, research is dismissible. After all, you have stated that research is nothing more than collecting anecdotal evidence.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

and that's the same silver that's in jewelry and on various FDA-Approved Wound Care products where *THEY* state that it kills MRSA, "all relevant pathogens," fungi and viruses.

And again, you totally misrepresent legitimate medical research.

So, again, using your reasoning that silver is sivler, if a person had an MRSA infect, I should be able to just put silver jewelry onto the wound and it would be cured. After all, silver is silver.

Or I could grind up some pure silver coins, put that on a dressing and use that dressing to cure MRSA. Again, using your reasoning, silver is silver.

And let us not forget that, according to you, research is dismissible. After all, you have stated that research is nothing more than collecting anecdotal evidence.

And you're an idiot,

Then why do you have to resort to calling me names, cannot back up your claims and have been shown to lie about what I have stated?

Odd how such an educated and self-professed intelligent person such as you cannot simply back up their claims and have to resort to ad hominems.

QUOTE

a liar,

A claim you have yet to support with any fact while I have shown you to have lied on more than one occasion.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

a liar,

A claim you have yet to support with any fact while I have shown you to have lied on more than one occasion.

and a stalker.

Again, not my fault that you posted from your work computer to a forum that posted most of your IP address for all to see.

Perhaps if you only had taken a few basic computer courses you would not be leaving personal information all over the web is such a careless manner.

So, in the end that is all you have still? Personal insults, unsubstantiated claims and the reasoning skills of a child?

Do you want me to post the link to the forum site where the first three octets of your IP address is posted publically for all to see?

Do you want me to show you how that partial address resolves back to only one company?

And you never did address the full ramifications of your child-like reasoning. I don’t believe that Grumpy, NEONOM, bm1957, MjolnirPants, TheDoc and I have disagreed on anything in these forums, or at least, nothing comes to mind. Using your child-like reasoning, does that mean we are all the same person?

bm1957

17th September 2008 - 01:32 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 16 2008, 08:41 PM)

Or the counterarguments posted are unconvincing, unsupported by facts, and/or stupid.

All of which unfortunately describe your attempts here at putting forward an argument about lasers and coating properties (note I'm not commenting on the accuracy of your stance, just the quality of your argument). You even tried to 'win' the argument by appealing to authority in that you share a patent which is to do with lasers.

Poor show.

MjolnirPants

17th September 2008 - 01:42 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 17 2008, 05:10 AM)

It's all right there in the record.

Liar. TheDoc has used that record to prove his case.

QUOTE

You never posted anything on the Stonehenge thread after opening it

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

You never posted anything on the Stonehenge thread after opening it

More baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, I see...

QUOTE

(But you two *are* sounding exactly the same these days.)

Liar. Genesplicer's post indicate an older person than TheDoc's. TheDoc's screen name and discourse indicate that this persona is based on an archtype (Dr. Who) rather than on the individual behind it, while GS's screen name and discouse indicate the opposite.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

(But you two *are* sounding exactly the same these days.)

Liar. Genesplicer's post indicate an older person than TheDoc's. TheDoc's screen name and discourse indicate that this persona is based on an archtype (Dr. Who) rather than on the individual behind it, while GS's screen name and discouse indicate the opposite.

But this isn't a debate, this is me posting out the fact that you can buy "Colloidal Silver" from a vitamin store and it's the same stuff they proved clinically to CURE MALARIA in AFRICA

Liar. CS is not prescribed in any formalized medical system for malaria.

QUOTE

was recommended to be stockpiled by the Department of Homeland Security in case of a bioterrorist ANTHRAX or BUBONIC PLAGUE attack by a retired USAF Lt. General who also happens to be a Medical Doctor.

Liar. He recommended stockpiling an anti-microbial solution which contained silver, not CS. Do you know the difference? The antimicrobial is not meant to be ingested by or injected into the patient. it is used to wipe down counters, to clean wounds and to sterilize equipment. The only use on humans is a TOPICAL application.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

was recommended to be stockpiled by the Department of Homeland Security in case of a bioterrorist ANTHRAX or BUBONIC PLAGUE attack by a retired USAF Lt. General who also happens to be a Medical Doctor.

Liar. He recommended stockpiling an anti-microbial solution which contained silver, not CS. Do you know the difference? The antimicrobial is not meant to be ingested by or injected into the patient. it is used to wipe down counters, to clean wounds and to sterilize equipment. The only use on humans is a TOPICAL application.

Do you think *you're* smarter than *he* is?

What does it matter? Are smart people invariably right? Charles Manson was smart.

QUOTE

And let me get this straight - I'm supposed to waste time "debating" someone who takes issue with the statement "Silver is silver"?

By the logic implied in the claim "silver is silver" while accounting for the context in which it was used, I could argue that a silver bullet through the heart will cure cancer.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

And let me get this straight - I'm supposed to waste time "debating" someone who takes issue with the statement "Silver is silver"?

By the logic implied in the claim "silver is silver" while accounting for the context in which it was used, I could argue that a silver bullet through the heart will cure cancer.

That's called "the Identity principle" in logic, and it's the first formal rule of logic (which, unlike you, I took in college). Without it, no logical argument can be considered valid.

How would you know what GS studied in college?

QUOTE

SILVER *IS* SILVER.

But Colloidal Silver is not Silver Nanoparticles.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

SILVER *IS* SILVER.

But Colloidal Silver is not Silver Nanoparticles.

Maybe you can't understand that because you've got so many different screennames that you've got multiple personality disorder

An irrelevant ad hominem.... I thought you studied logic in college? Didn't they teach you about the invalidity of irrelevencies and ad hominems?
For a guy who stoops to chastising other's use of logic, you use logic very very poorly yourself.

wcelliott

17th September 2008 - 02:21 PM

QUOTE
But this isn't a debate, this is me posting out the fact that you can buy "Colloidal Silver" from a vitamin store and it's the same stuff they proved clinically to CURE MALARIA in AFRICA

and MjP says:
Liar. CS is not prescribed in any formalized medical system for malaria.[QUOTE]

This is the sort of misrepresentation that I expect (routinely) from GS. I didn't say that CS is prescribed in a formalized medical system, I said that in clinical trials, they proved it cured malaria. What's this "formalized medical system" BS?

The account of what happened is in the Congressional Testimony that I linked to, where a doctor gave 11 kids dying of malaria Colloidal Silver (their brand) and they lived, and the other kids who didn't get the Colloidal Silver died (there's GS' "control group").

Then, they repeated the clinical research with more clinics and more patients, and cured all malaria victims they treated, and then they put together another protocol designed for 600+ patients and that's where they reported to Congress.

And if you want to see the difference between anedotal information and clinical research, go ahead and look at the forms that they filled out on that website, because that's what the difference is - the same researchers filling out the same forms before collecting them together and putting them in spreadsheets. Forms and red-tape and spreadsheets and charts, all to dress-up anecdotal information. Patient X received a one-oz dose of CS per day, got well from malaria in five days. Now, put that in a spreadsheet and plot it, so we can call it "science". Been there, done that.

And silver atoms are silver atoms. Is that less confusing?

If RC only hadn't intervened on your behalf, we'd all know which infectious disease you thought was a "toxin".

The difference between getting a formal education and reading books on your own is that in a formal education, they *make* you read books that you wouldn't otherwise bother with, so you end up learning things that someone who's homeschooled doesn't.

What's my secret? (Somebody asked.) Well, I mentioned I got into ISPE, but I didn't say how much I cleared the entrance requirements by. That would've been bragging.

GeneSplicer

17th September 2008 - 03:06 PM

QUOTE (wcelliot+)

This is the sort of misrepresentation that I expect (routinely) from GS. I didn't say that CS is prescribed in a formalized medical system, I said that in clinical trials, they proved it cured malaria. What's this "formalized medical system" BS?

And again, where is the published results? So far you have cited a forum for a podcast and an alternative medicine cite that is involved in HIV/AIDS denial.

And again, that claim of a cure was the 2005 report, yes? Where are all of the follow-up trials?

QUOTE

(there's GS' "control group").

And again, you misrepresent what I stated and illustrate just how little you know about medical trials.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

(there's GS' "control group").

And again, you misrepresent what I stated and illustrate just how little you know about medical trials.

Then, they repeated the clinical research with more clinics and more patients, and cured all malaria victims they treated, and then they put together another protocol designed for 600+ patients and that's where they reported to Congress.

Source?

QUOTE

And if you want to see the difference between anedotal information and clinical research, go ahead and look at the forms that they filled out on that website,

What website? You keep making these claims but your sources are lacking a great many times. Any telling people to “Go look it up” again is not sufficient.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

And if you want to see the difference between anedotal information and clinical research, go ahead and look at the forms that they filled out on that website,

What website? You keep making these claims but your sources are lacking a great many times. Any telling people to “Go look it up” again is not sufficient.

because that's what the difference is - the same researchers filling out the same forms before collecting them together and putting them in spreadsheets. Forms and red-tape and spreadsheets and charts, all to dress-up anecdotal information.

And that is not the different between anecdotal information and clinical research.

QUOTE

And silver atoms are silver atoms. Is that less confusing?

Ah, so now you change your claim? Again, “silver is silver” is a laughable claim unless you believe that oxygen is just oxygen.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

And silver atoms are silver atoms. Is that less confusing?

Ah, so now you change your claim? Again, “silver is silver” is a laughable claim unless you believe that oxygen is just oxygen.

If RC only hadn't intervened on your behalf, we'd all know which infectious disease you thought was a "toxin".

Can’t address me by name now?

So tell me what "we'd all know"? Which one do you think I thought was a toxin?

You mean you assume based upon your ignorance and personal castigation of me. I stated what I meant. Not my fault you were to obtuse or pedantic to follow. Also not my fault that you did not know that toxins were also involved in those infections.

QUOTE

The difference between getting a formal education and reading books on your own is that in a formal education, they *make* you read books that you wouldn't otherwise bother with, so you end up learning things that someone who's homeschooled doesn't.

Who stated anything about homeschooled? Is that your simplistic view of the world? Formal versus homeschooled?

And again, you keep trying to brag about your formal education and assume you are superior to others due to it.

Odd how your education failed you in reciting the laws of thought.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The difference between getting a formal education and reading books on your own is that in a formal education, they *make* you read books that you wouldn't otherwise bother with, so you end up learning things that someone who's homeschooled doesn't.

Who stated anything about homeschooled? Is that your simplistic view of the world? Formal versus homeschooled?

And again, you keep trying to brag about your formal education and assume you are superior to others due to it.

Odd how your education failed you in reciting the laws of thought.

What's my secret? (Somebody asked.)

Where?

QUOTE

Well, I mentioned I got into ISPE, but I didn't say how much I cleared the entrance requirements by. That would've been bragging.

No, mentioning your name on a patent, mentioning the ISPE and continually harping about your formal education while making one assumption after another about others is bragging and making an appeal from authority as it has been pointed out by myself and others.

So, no comment about you information you left on the internet?

No comment about how you misrepresented recently posted claims about the use of silver?

No comment about how I must have many, many accounts since I have not disagreed with many here?

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

Just how many intellectually dishonest tactics are you willing to take?

MjolnirPants

17th September 2008 - 03:10 PM

QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 17 2008, 02:21 PM)

I didn't say that CS is prescribed in a formalized medical system, I said that in clinical trials, they proved it cured malaria.

Liar. You said it's being used to cure malaria in Africa.

The formal medical system comment arose because most cures in Africa are a result of foreign aid, which is governed by formal medical systems. Since CS is not held to cure malaria by any formal medical system, it is not being used to cure malaria in Africa.

And it does NOT cure malaria. That's complete bullsh*t.

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.