Proof???!!!!!

[Carey]

It probably wasn't a brown recluse. The media around the brown recluse has been blown way out of proportion, and many people claiming to be bit these days are in areas where the brown recluse doesn't even live. Why, after all, would you even think it was a brown recluse if it didn't even cause a sore?

By the way, the swelling and itching might have easily been caused by the silver.

It was a brown recluse I am familiar with them and examined the smashed caracass.

I did not administer the silver until the swelling burning and itching were already severe.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was a brown recluse I am familiar with them and examined the smashed caracass.

I did not administer the silver until the swelling burning and itching were already severe.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been bitten by a recluse before?

 

[Split Rock]

Heavy metal toxicity is not a good thing.

Before the introduction of 2,4-D (the first selective, low-toxicity herbicide) after WWII, arsenicals were often used for herbicide control, in addition to thiocyanates and dinitrophenols (all quite dangerous). Sometimes they were advertised as "moderately non-toxic to warm-blooded mammals."

 

[Carey]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been bitten by a recluse before?

No but I had a freind when I was younger ,that worked with me a Terminix that did . He had a huge scar from it.

 

[Blayz]

When you look up minerals look at the difference between angstrom and micron particle size

Angstrom? micron? When was the last time particulate matter was measured in either? I guess in CareyWorld we have angstromtechnology instead of nanotechnology.

 

[Loudmouth]

Before the introduction of 2,4-D (the first selective, low-toxicity herbicide) after WWII, arsenicals were often used for herbicide control, in addition to thiocyanates and dinitrophenols (all quite dangerous). Sometimes they were advertised as "moderately non-toxic to warm-blooded mammals."

Leaded gasoline, gold leeching fields, leaded paint . . . the list goes on. In fact, the treatment for syphillis during the American Civil War was urethral flushes with mercury.

 

[Split Rock]

Leaded gasoline, gold leeching fields, leaded paint . . . the list goes on. In fact, the treatment for syphillis during the American Civil War was urethral flushes with mercury.

Arsenic compounds were often in medicine before antibiotics came into use. Sometimes dyes that stained a particular pathogen were bound to an arsenic compound to try and "target" the pathogen in question. The therapeutic index of these medicines were usually very high.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Angstrom? micron? When was the last time particulate matter was measured in either? I guess in CareyWorld we have angstromtechnology instead of nanotechnology.

Micron and nanometer are common units I use in mineral colloidal dispersion studies that I do. I work with nanomilling to submicron particle sizes for some of my applications.

Angstrom? That'd be pretty small. If I could mill that far down that I needed angstrom I think I'd have some pretty good milling equipment.

 

[FishFace]

I was bitten on my thigh by a brown recluse spider
when I smashed and killed it.
The most powerful antibiotic in the world is the mineral silver.

Evidence for that, please? Silver is a heavy metal and toxic to humans. It is also a carcinogen.

I simply soaked cotton balls and applied to the bite keeping them saturated with the silver for a few days. It swelled it itched butt never became a sore.
It healed and you cannot see where I was bitten no sign of scar because there was never a sore.

Not all bites get infected, and silver would do nothing against the venom itself. One story of one bite is not evidence.

When you look up minerals look at the difference between angstrom and micron particle size in
production and the ffort it takes to get it to the smaller angstrom particle size. It has everything to do with the effectiveness.

Why are you telling us this? If you want to convince us, then show us the scientific, peer-reviewed, double-blind trials. That's how real medicine is done, and there's no excuse not to do it unless your medicine is snake-oil.

 

[Carey]

Angstrom? micron? When was the last time particulate matter was measured in either? I guess in CareyWorld we have angstromtechnology instead of nanotechnology.

Obviously you are obvlivious to the human bodies abiltiy to absorb necessary supplements.

The necessity to have supplements is due to the problems caysed by science and its attempt to increase effectiveness of farming and raching.

Particle size of the supplements we consume is soooooo imporatnt to effectiveness.

 

[Blayz]

Obviously you are obvlivious to the human bodies abiltiy to absorb necessary supplements.

Yeah, gues they didn't cover that in my 20 years of life science research experience.

The necessity to have supplements is due to the problems caysed by science and its attempt to increase effectiveness of farming and raching.

Right. I'd ask for proof, but since this is an utter fabrication completely divorced from reality, I wont bother.

Particle size of the supplements we consume is soooooo imporatnt to effectiveness.

Sure. all the way down to angstroms, which is the unit we use to measure the distance between atoms.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Obviously you are obvlivious to the human bodies abiltiy to absorb necessary supplements.

The necessity to have supplements is due to the problems caysed by science and its attempt to increase effectiveness of farming and raching.

Particle size of the supplements we consume is soooooo imporatnt to effectiveness.

Particle size is important because it is an indicator of what kind of particle it is (along with its charge, etc). However, while an Ångström is indeed a measure of particle size, the human body (and terrestrial biology in general) is far more interested in the structure of molecules, rather than the size of individual molecules.

And in any case, silver is not a cure for brown recluse bites: the former has some effect on skin cancer due to its electrical properties, but the latter is hardly carcinogenic.

 

[FishFace]

From the wikipedia article on the brown recluse:

"Wound infection is rare. Antibiotics are not recommended unless there is a credible diagnosis of infection.[16]"

Source is a pubmed entry.

 

[Loudmouth]

From the wikipedia article on the brown recluse:

"Wound infection is rare. Antibiotics are not recommended unless there is a credible diagnosis of infection.[16]"

Source is a pubmed entry.

If it weren't for multiple drug resistant bugs prophylactic use of antibiotics would still be the norm. Doctors are wisely holding back preventative antibiotics to limit the bugs exposure to new antibiotics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously you are obvlivious to the human bodies abiltiy to absorb necessary supplements.

Obviously you are oblivious to the bodies propensity to absorb poisons. Hemoglobin binds cyanide better than it does oxygen, for example.

The necessity to have supplements is due to the problems caysed by science and its attempt to increase effectiveness of farming and raching.

No one should ever need supplements if they eat a well balanced diet.

Particle size of the supplements we consume is soooooo imporatnt to effectiveness.

Supplements aren't important.

 

[Carey]

Obviously you are oblivious to the bodies propensity to absorb poisons. Hemoglobin binds cyanide better than it does oxygen, for example.



No one should ever need supplements if they eat a well balanced diet.



Supplements aren't important.

Ok

See my signature.

 

[Carey]

The Bible predicted this stupidity.

The occults influence on science and medicine has prevented it from being accurate in so many arenas.

What is taught in science/medical schools is often wrong because there is so much omitted.


http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/hist_sci.htm

Because modern science distinguishes between subjective and objective and teaches us that objective is “good” and subjective is “bad,” this creates for us an increasingly wide gulf between our perceptions of phenomena and the concepts by which we explain them. For example, we see the Sun rise and set just as people have done for thousands of years, but we think of this in terms of the Earth’s rotation.

There’s an interesting story in all of this that illustrates the sorts of power struggle games that scientists play. In biology, as in many other sciences, there are many people who judge a person’s worth in life by how many publications that person has authored: the name of the game is “Publish or Perish.”

Predictably, theologians dug in their heels and resisted. Scientists “bent over backwards” to be “totally objective,” and avoid anything that could be perceived as being even a little bit subjective, even to rejecting, en masse, the Judeo-Christian concept of a Creator along with the rejected Greek ideas. One sad consequence of this divorce is that, while amazing scientific discoveries have been made, we often are at a loss for ethical guidelines and the subjective judgements and framework to make the wisest use of those discoveries.

One parting thought — what’s your opinion?
Up until about 100-150 years ago, science/biology and “religion” were intertwined in human thought and culture. The religious aspect, although sometimes abused, gave people a sense of right and wrong, morals, and/or ethics. Since Darwin’s time, in Western culture, science and religion have pretty much gone their own ways at a time when new discoveries are constantly being made in science. Since then, science has “bent over backwards,” as it were, to insure objectivity and make sure it has nothing to do with religion, which many scientists reject as being too subjective. In the last 40 years since the publication of Watson and Crick’s paper on DNA, our biological knowledge has increased exponentially, especially in the field of genetics, and now we’re realizing there’s no ethical framework on which to hang it. There are all sorts of fantastic, and perhaps lifesaving, things that we are capable of doing which also give us the ability to annihilate whole segments of the human population and/or whole other species of organisms. People have claimed that our knowledge had grown faster than our ability to make the ethical decisions, but sometimes I wonder if maybe we’ve ignored/stifled ethics in the name of “objectivity.”


Here is probably some more good reading for you.


http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...AF37C0777166.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1103
Research Article

From medical astrology to medical astronomy: sol-lunar and planetary theories of disease in British medicine, c. 1700–1850

MARK HARRISON a1 fn1
a1 Department of History, School of Cultural Studies, Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK

Abstract

After 1700, astrology lost the respect it once commanded in medical circles. But the belief that the heavens influenced bodily health persisted – even in learned medicine – until well into the nineteenth century. The continuing vitality of these ideas owed much to the new empirical and mechanical outlook of their proponents. Taking their cue from the work of Robert Boyle and Richard Mead, a number of British practitioners amassed statistical evidence which purported to prove the influence of the Moon upon fevers and other diseases. Such ideas flourished in the colonies and in the medical services of the armed forces, but their exponents were not marginal men. Some, like James Lind, were widely respected and drew support for their views from such influential figures as Erasmus Darwin.

 

[FishFace]

If it weren't for multiple drug resistant bugs prophylactic use of antibiotics would still be the norm. Doctors are wisely holding back preventative antibiotics to limit the bugs exposure to new antibiotics.

Interesting. Why is it risky to prescribe antibiotics "just in case?" If there is no infection, wouldn't there be no risk of resistance?
Or is it possible that there be a low-level infection which the antibiotics would give selective pressure to? I would've thought that in a case where antibiotic application would produce resistance bacteria, there would be an infection regardless, and so antibiotics would still need to be given.

I presume I'm wrong, though - not being a doctor.

 

[Blayz]

Interesting. Why is it risky to prescribe antibiotics "just in case?" If there is no infection, wouldn't there be no risk of resistance?
Or is it possible that there be a low-level infection which the antibiotics would give selective pressure to? I would've thought that in a case where antibiotic application would produce resistance bacteria, there would be an infection regardless, and so antibiotics would still need to be given.

I presume I'm wrong, though - not being a doctor.

Firstly, most antibiotics are given orally, so they get into the entire system (most importantly the gut)
Secondly, just because there is no infection doesn't mean there is no bacteria
Thirdly antibiotics do not evaporate, they hang around in the environment for a long time.

The end result is you are increasing the over all environmental exposure to the antibiotic, and thus increasing the amount of general resistance. Since bacteria are constantly swapping genetic material, you are thus increasing the chanc that a pathogenic bug will pick up the resistance.

 

[FishFace]

Ok

See my signature.

Stupid arguments?

Although I think Loudmouth was incorrect - I think cyanide binds to an enzyme in the electron transport chain, disrupting respiration. Certainly, no amount of silver will cure that, and no amount of woo-woo medicine will prevent necrotoxin (the active "ingredient" in a brown recluse's bite) from killing off your body's cells.

This has devolved into a debate not on evolution but on your ideas on medicine. This may technically be off-topic but it's extremely important. Why? Because people are credulous and gullible, and, while you're welcome to believe what you want to believe, you shouldn't cause the deaths of other people by getting them to believe the same unsupported ideas. Likewise, whoever told you this stuff was in the wrong when they did so.

If you have evidence, then why isn't it out there in the scientific world? Do the research if you want to be taken seriously but until then, you're just effectively practicing medicine without a license on a smaller scale. There's a reason there are things like the Food and Drug Association - this stuff is serious, and due process for medicine prevents people dying.

So back up your ideas, or PLEASE for the rest of the world's sake, keep quiet about them.