Beyond wrote:Although I've tried a few different things that were guaranteed to work, but did absolutely nothing, like a placebo.
That's the opposite of a placebo.
A placebo is not designed to do anything. However, it sometimes causes production of some extraordinary results from the human that receives it, even though there's no way that the ingredients of the placebo could cause it to happen. A placebo, in and of itself, is nothing.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:03 am
by Ann
Beyond wrote:
A placebo, in and of itself, is nothing.
A placebo is something that works because the human mind expects it to. I have read (and don't ask me to back it up with a source) that if a doctor believes in the treatment he or she prescribes for the patient, then the treatment works better. If the doctor feels doubtful about the treatment, then the patient doesn't respond to it so well. The placebo effect in this case comes from the doctor.
Ann
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:20 am
by Beyond
Some people may call that... having faith in the doctor.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:45 am
by Chris Peterson
Ann wrote:
Beyond wrote:
A placebo, in and of itself, is nothing.
A placebo is something that works because the human mind expects it to. I have read (and don't ask me to back it up with a source) that if a doctor believes in the treatment he or she prescribes for the patient, then the treatment works better. If the doctor feels doubtful about the treatment, then the patient doesn't respond to it so well. The placebo effect in this case comes from the doctor.
Ann
The workings of a placebo are interesting. Recent research suggests they work just as well even when the patient knows they aren't real medicine. It is hypothesized that the ritual involved in taking the treatment is what is actually beneficial, which would explain the mild efficacy of homeopathic "drugs", colloidal silver, and other agents that certainly have no biological value for treating any medical conditions.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:13 am
by geckzilla
Beyond wrote:
geckzilla wrote:The burden of proof does not lie with me. You are the one making the extraordinary claim.
It's not an extraordinary claim to me. And I'm not trying to prove it to you or anyone else.
This is actually the second time you have tried to convince us. It's actually crackpottery and it's not mainstream science so while I feel strongly against it there is also a good reason for you to not discuss it anymore.
Beyond wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
Beyond wrote:I used the word usually, because one time i didn't catch it fast enough and it took a couple of days to get rid of it. My sinus' like to drip a lot, unless the weather is really dry, so the cold was able to 'sneak up' on me. Thus the term usually was used to be technically correct.
Classic selection bias.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "classic selection bias", but seeing as how I've never had a failure in eliminating a cold with it, how could there be any "selection bias"? Normally, (another key word?) i would ascribe "classic selection bias" to being city slicker talk, but you live out in the country up on a mountain, so i suppose I'd have to refer to it as high altitude effect.
You won't even acknowledge the shortcomings of your argument or the strengths of any counter-argument. You only accept something which reinforces your belief despite being presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary*. You picked the one thing (no human studies) which reinforced your belief. You know why there have been no human studies? It would be unethical to study harmful effects of colloidal silver on human subjects. That is as classic as it gets.
*Edit: Goofed here slightly. What I should have written was overwhelming evidence that it is harmful and complete lack of evidence that it is helpful in any way.
Beyond wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
Beyond wrote:Although I've tried a few different things that were guaranteed to work, but did absolutely nothing, like a placebo.
That's the opposite of a placebo.
A placebo is not designed to do anything. However, it sometimes causes production of some extraordinary results from the human that receives it, even though there's no way that the ingredients of the placebo could cause it to happen. A placebo, in and of itself, is nothing.
A placebo could be any substance which placates the person receiving it. Sometimes it is designed to have a purpose even though it actually has no physical effect (or, in your case, unknown or possible long-term negative effects) but the giver and the patient believes it so the placebo effect takes place. Other times it's designed specially to be inert. It's definitely something.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:25 am
by wonderboy
There is not overwhelming evidence to the contrary. the facts are thus. Beyond drinks it and his colds go away, we know this because it happens. whether this is a placebo effect or something to do with the colloidal silver has not been proven. Another fact is that silver does have a sterilising effect on water, so if it is able to sterilise water maybe it can sterilise saliva which contains the germs at the back of the throat (this part is speculative and not a fact). another fact is that it turns you blue if not done properly and in excessive amounts. no one is correct and no one is wrong we just dont know yet.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:44 am
by makc
Beyond wrote:I've never had a failure in eliminating a cold with it
wonderboy wrote:Beyond drinks it and his colds go away, we know this because it happens.
But what makes you think there is a connection, and these are not two separate facts?
For example. At my job I am fixing bugs in computer software. I am also sitting and typing on my keyboard. If I do not sit, or do sit but do not type, bugs aren't getting fixed. Would it be reasonable to suggest then, if you were to come into my office, sit in my chair and type on my keyboard, they bugs will be again fixed? I don't think so This is where the observation is flawed.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:58 am
by wonderboy
not really, in this example, regarding your bugs. I could be a placebo. "I will fix your bugs," i would say, and you would offer me your chair I would sit and the amount of work that would get done would be equal to the centre of a donu. However, also in your example, you are the colloidal silver that gets the job done!!!
I am joking btw, I do not know if there is a connection. but in the absence of any proper science FACT telling us about the medicinal advantages and disadvantages of colloidal silver I am going to sit on the fence. as I said im not saying that anyone in particular is wrong or right. Im simply stating that in cases reported by people that have drank said silver juice there have been intances where it is purported to have worked and some cases where its turned the people blue. its a bit like willy wonka blueberryade in that respect!
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:07 pm
by makc
wonderboy wrote:However, in your example, you are the colloidal silver that gets the job done!!!
How do you the silver is me, and not, for example, my chair, or my keyboard?
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:09 pm
by wonderboy
because you are the active ingredient in the situation. i sit on your chair and type on your keyboard but have no real interaction with either in order to produce the required effect. You are the active body in the whole scenario.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:24 pm
by owlice
Okay, that's enough about colloidal silver. No more, unless you are presenting peer-reviewed papers in respected journals of research which bolsters your position. If you don't have any such resources to present about its efficacy, do not mention it again on these boards.
All subsequent posts (and perhaps some of the previous ones!) on this topic will be sequestered.
Yes, I have my administrator's hat on.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Owlice Forum admin
ETA: and oh, yes, please remember that discussing admin/moderator actions on the board is not allowed. If you have an issue with it, PM an admin. Thanks.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:58 pm
by wonderboy
thanks owlice
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:56 pm
by Beyond
Owlice, my acronym finder doesn't list anything for ETA. Would you kindly enlighten me? Thank you.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:25 pm
by makc
estimated time of arrival does not seem to be good match
<<In the area of analytic number theory, the Dirichlet eta function is defined by the following Dirichlet series, which converges for any complex number having real part > 0:
This Dirichlet series is the alternating sum corresponding to the Dirichlet series expansion of the Riemann zeta function, ζ(s) — and for this reason the Dirichlet eta function is also known as the alternating zeta function, also denoted ζ*(s). The following simple relation holds:
While the Dirichlet series expansion for the eta function is convergent only for any complex number s with real part > 0, it is Abel summable for any complex number. This serves to define the eta function as an entire function (and the above relation then shows the zeta function is meromorphic with a simple pole at s = 1, and perhaps poles at the other zeros of the factor.>>
Had a dream last night that I was in some tropical place and I took a photo of a partial solar eclipse, a rainbow, and Venus all in the same frame and I submitted it to APOD.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:17 pm
by geckzilla
Zefrank is pretty much the best nature documentary maker.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Re: Stream of Stuff
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:13 pm
by Beyond
Well, now that I've stopped laughing... I can agree with you And aww, those cuttlefish are so cuttlely.
This is where the observation is flawed.
.>>
And aww, those cuttlefish are so cuttlely. 