@wolfgang59 saidYou have not been paying attention. Must I always go back and give you a special explanation?
Say what?!?!
@eladar saidIt's an agency of the United Nations. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by that statement. However, they commissioned a systematic review of the use of silver as a drinking water disinfectant and the principal authors, Lorna Fewtrell of Aberystwyth University and Ruth Bevan of IEH Consulting, UK, have done a very extensive literature search, with a complete list of references and a set of tables familiar to anyone who's worked with systematic reviews, the information is well presented.
The WHO is not a valid medical organization.
However, I have a criticism of the document which is that they do not appear to have explained their methods for gathering data. In a systematic review one normally makes a statement along the lines of: "We searched <list of medical search engines> with the terms <list of search terms> we included papers with <list of inclusion criteria> and excluded papers which <list of exclusion criteria>.". The WHO document doesn't appear to do that. However, I'm basing this on quickly scanning a few pages, not on a careful reading of the whole document and they may explain their inclusion and exclusion criteria elsewhere in the document. This is a reasonable criticism of the document.
That "The WHO is not a valid medical organization." is not a meaningful criticism of the publication, in a fairly trivial sense it's true, it's the Health Agency of the United Nations, however, this is not relevant, neither is a university a "valid" medical organisation, but you'll happily cite any number of academic papers to attempt to support whatever the latest thing you're attempting to justify.
@DeepThought
The WHO is a political organization, as such its medical advice is not entirely reliable.
I view them as a wing of the American establishment as well as a servant to China.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@eladar saidThat...
I view them as a wing of the American establishment as well as a servant to China.
No. No, I just can't. Such confusion between China and Russia... Only among the Republibertarians. No-one else.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@eladar saidDo we? Please prove. We know that it's effective against a completely different kingdom of living beings; that doesn't mean it's equally, or even at all, effective against something almost-living. Taking silver against viruses is like taking an anti-fungal agent against botflies.
We know that silver is also effective against viruses.
Then again, if you believe in it... go ahead. Put your money where your gob is. Prove yourself right. Take a shot of colloidal silver every night, until the vaccine is found. And please do post pictures of the result - I do love seeing real-life photos of Peyo's proudest.
1 edit
@shallow-blue saidDid you read the link in the original post of this thread?
Do we? Please prove. We know that it's effective against a completely different kingdom of living beings; that doesn't mean it's equally, or even at all, effective against something almost-living. Taking silver against viruses is like taking an anti-fungal agent against botflies.
Then again, if you believe in it... go ahead. Put your money where your gob is. Prove you ...[text shortened]... d. And please do post pictures of the result - I do love seeing real-life photos of Peyo's proudest.
That makes two people who spout off out of ignorance.