Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Y2K (Year 2000) Personal Contingency Planning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert C. Petersen who wrote (361)	5/26/1998 7:49:00 PM
From: Bill Ounce	Respond to of 888

off-topic tangent: medical quackery This thread is about Y2K personal contingency planning and not medical quackery. My point was to be careful and not let quacks take advantage of you if a panic situation materializes in regard to Y2K. Everyone should do their own research, and check out the skeptics such as quackwatch.com to get the naysayer's opinion. we can agree to disagree The particular instance of colloidal silver is very controversial at best with the FDA looking to ban its sale. We probably won't agree on anything more than this. But that's OK we still can be civil :-) Potential Y2K distrubances make this point moot anyways. Why I think the way I do: There are too many "scientific studies" floating around to read. Some are valid statistics/science, some are not. It is a non-trivial process to determine the validity of these studies, detailed knowledge in the sub-sub-sub dicipline is required and the entire study must be carefully examined for errors. This is why peer reviewed journals are so important. I haven't read any of those 183 citations, but how many were in respected scientific journals? More info on your example of antibiotic abuse by doctors: Doctors are humans, prone to make mistakes just like anyone else, which is why consultation among their peers (and researchers) is of vital importance. When antibiotics first came out, they were very effective and anitbiotic resistance was not a concern because there was no data indicating that it should be a concern (it takes some time (years) for this to become a significant problem. Sometimes a person will start out with a viral infection that opens a hole for a future bacteriological infection. There is no "cure" for most viral infections, but the doctor tried to help prevent a future infection with an antibiotic. Now there is evidence that this approach generates more future problems than it solves. Medical schools and peer groups are getting the word out to stop this old practice. The system does work, it just takes a while.