There is lots of tricks. Like if the scientists know that certain populations are more likely to be negatively impacted by the drug, in other words if older PPL or younger PPL cannot handle the side effects then they are excluded by the trials. They can exclude who they wish by certain tricks of the trade. It is quite amazing how the real 'science' of quackery works.
Alan On 2014-08-11, at 09:59 AM, Marshall wrote: One thing that is really bad is that drug companies are allowed to use anything they want as the placebo, then they are allowed to call it a sugar pill. Generally the only time they really use a sugar pill for a placebo is when testing drugs for diabetes. What is generally done is to use a placebo that makes the condition the drug is used for worse, so when the drug is tested against it, the results will be that it preformed better than the (toxic) placebo even it it really does nothing. Marshall On 8/11/2014 12:28 PM, Alan Faulkner wrote: > The fact of the matter is that clinical trials have landed us many dud drugs > that killed a lot of PPL, because clinical trials can be misleading, easy to > manipulate, easy to create the outcome you want by manipulating the data and > the trial proceedings. > > Science is so easy to corrupt that drug companies and the Allopathic medical > community even have English Majors working for them, that massage the way the > results are spoken. Consequently I have more faith in faith healers than the > results of modern clinical trials. They are and have been a scam to sell > product right from the beginning. > > Science has taken on the mantle of religion, as Rupert Sheldrake has called > it "Sciencism". > > Lots of books on the topic of big pharma/allopathic fibbing, but one of the > latest is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg > > I agree that there should be objective inquiry into things medical, but it is > so difficult to be objective when the PPL who are out to objectify the > results all have a major financial/reputation/ego stake in the outcome. > > So Victor who would pay for this? You? > > Alan > > > On 2014-08-10, at 17:16 PM, M.G. Devour wrote: > > Victor asks David: > >> Why do you care about clinical trials, the FDA, etc.? > David replies: >> We do ourselves a disservice by claiming there is proof where >> there is none. Its a stick that our opponents will continually >> beat us with. Far better for us to concentrate on the results >> of the thousands of lab tests and on the compelling anecdotal >> 'evidence'. > I'd say that about answers the question... There is a major distinction > to be made between lab tests vs. clinical trials vs. anecdotal reports. > To make any claims about clinical results BASED ON LAB TESTS is foolish, > at best, and far too many such claims are made by folks attempting to > "sell" CS, one way or another. > > What proof we have for clinical results is based on *extensive* > anecdotal evidence... literally the experience of many thousands of > users and applications over decades. However, that experience isn't > systematically documented or presented anywhere I know of... It's > basically a word of mouth, over the back fence kind of thing. > > What is probably right, though, is to say that clinical trials have not > and will not happen any time soon. There's just not enough profit to be > made from silver that anybody can make in their home to justify the > investment of 10's or 100's of millions of dollars (US) for the clinical > trials and applications for FDA approval... If you add the institutional > resistance due to commercial influence on the regulatory and funding > processes, it will be pretty hard to get anything through. > > I think David's point, that we should keep our claims realistic and > limited to what we actually *do* have proof for, would leave us better > off in the marketplace of ideas. > > Be well, > > Mike D. > > > > > > > -- > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org > > Unsubscribe: > <mailto: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> > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3955/7510 - Release Date: 08/10/14 > > >
