Well said Mike. I agree with you and David 99%, but I still have a point of contention about the clinical trials.
My point is about keeping the people empowered. FDA approval and 'official' clinical trials should not be held as being more weighted than the 'other' evidence that you listed. Especially in our small circle on this mailing list, where we are supposed to be empowered and empowering others. (And thanks to Phil for posting those nice links with lots of 'evidence' to illustrate that point). Of course we need/want more tests and more knowledge, and that is happening. If the FDA jumps on board, and a large pharmaceutical company does indeed do clinical trials and start selling product, it is unlikely to help us, and much more likely to hurt us. Laws, patents, etc., will take CS away from us. We could end up being treated as drug dealers and drug pushers, and the commercial products will likely be far inferior (as was the case in the early twentieth century). I do see your point about needing/wanting widespread approval. And I understand the power of the mindshare and influence held by the FDA and clinical trials. But we can get there eventually with safer grassroots movements, and there are more and more doctors coming into the CS camp. I am a strong advocate of home brewed CS, and I see the FDA and clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies as a threat to that. And so I also agree with you about people selling CS on bogus claims being a big problem. One final comment - I have succeeded in getting many people started on CS, and watched it eliminate many many health issues, as I am sure many of you have. FDA approval or clinical trials would not have helped me do that any more effectively. Thanks for all your comments. Victor On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:16 AM, M.G. Devour <mdev...@gmail.com> wrote: > Victor asks David: > > > Why do you care about clinical trials, the FDA, etc.? > > David replies: > > > > We do ourselves a disservice by claiming there is proof where > > there is none. Its a stick that our opponents will continually > > beat us with. Far better for us to concentrate on the results > > of the thousands of lab tests and on the compelling anecdotal > > 'evidence'. > > I'd say that about answers the question... There is a major distinction > to be made between lab tests vs. clinical trials vs. anecdotal reports. > To make any claims about clinical results BASED ON LAB TESTS is foolish, > at best, and far too many such claims are made by folks attempting to > "sell" CS, one way or another. > > What proof we have for clinical results is based on *extensive* > anecdotal evidence... literally the experience of many thousands of > users and applications over decades. However, that experience isn't > systematically documented or presented anywhere I know of... It's > basically a word of mouth, over the back fence kind of thing. > > What is probably right, though, is to say that clinical trials have not > and will not happen any time soon. There's just not enough profit to be > made from silver that anybody can make in their home to justify the > investment of 10's or 100's of millions of dollars (US) for the clinical > trials and applications for FDA approval... If you add the institutional > resistance due to commercial influence on the regulatory and funding > processes, it will be pretty hard to get anything through. > > I think David's point, that we should keep our claims realistic and > limited to what we actually *do* have proof for, would leave us better > off in the marketplace of ideas. > > Be well, > > Mike D. > > > > > > > -- > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org > > Unsubscribe: > <mailto:silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=unsubscribe> > Archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/silver-list@eskimo.com/maillist.html > > Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com> > List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:mdev...@eskimo.com> > > >
