Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Undue weight and anti-colloidal silver bias.

The anti-colloidal silver bias of the more determined editors of this article has rendered it almost useless as a fair reference source. The fanaticism of these editors to paint colloidal silver as a scam and a great public danger has resulted in an unbalanced article of of unrelenting negativity.

For example, the claim that the use of colloidal silver is not based on 'medical evidence' is repeated in various ways at least 7 TIMES throughout the article. The claim that silver is toxic is also repeated at least 7 TIMES.

These repetitive negative statements create an overwhelming impression that silver is immensely dangerous and totally without any scientific credibility. All this in spite of the fact that silver has proven antimicrobial properties and the only proven toxicity is the relatively harmless cosmetic condition called argyria. Those wanting to continually present colloidal silver as a health hazard should note that silver is not a toxic or heavy metal, and that the FDA has not banned the sale of colloidal silver even though they have the power to do so if they consider it dangerous.DHawker (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

This needs to be put in perspective with other antibiotics. The side-effect list is tiny, with the only confirmed side-effected is turning blue. Of course, that's only if you drink far too much and/or it isn't made correctly. It's also incredibly cheaper that most other antibiotics despite the claim otherwise in this article. The amount of silver needed is microscopic. There's a good reason the FDA/medical establishment is trying to demonize this stuff and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out($). --66.243.192.119 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Might also want to mention NASA uses it in space flights. If the government is so sure it doesn't work at all why would NASA use the stuff when it really counts? Isn't it fishy that even though it's been proven over and over again to be an incredibly effective antibiotic the FDA says it hasn't been proven effective. That's called lying. --66.243.192.119 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}}. I can't find any mention of it on a NASA web site. The only references I can find to "colloidal silver" at nasa.gov involve silver/zinc batteries, paint (colloidal silver paste), or organic molecule detection. Nothing about water purification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Here, I'll put colloidal silver into perspective with other systemic antibiotics: it doesn't work, and it can turn you blue (but yes, it is cheaper). It doesn't take a genius to see through claims that a "cure" is being "suppressed" by the FDA, AMA, the Freemasons, and the Trilateral Commission. But for our purposes, please provide a reliable source so that we may verify your claims and include them, if verified, with the appropriate amount of weight. Happy editing. MastCell Talk 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
So "It doesn't work" you say. It's just as simple as that. Well we can see where you are coming from can't we? Can you honestly say you are fairly editing this article. There are hundreds of lab tests proving that silver kills germs. And there's a mountain of anecdotal evidence that is far more convincing than those extremely flimsy medical reports you cite. (I've read them). But I accept that anecdotal evidence isn't good enough for Wikipedia so I'm not trying to push it in. But if you are going to start extensively editing this article you should familiarise yourself with both sides of the story and try and display a little less bias here. Reducing this colloidal silver article simply to what conventional doctors tell us about the stuff will not be particularly informative..DHawker (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.104.126 (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You know, a wise man once said that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". I've looked at what's out there on colloidal silver, but if you know of additional high-quality sources which take a positive view of its efficacy, then I'm always happy to learn something new. The article need not solely recapitulate the views of "conventional doctors", but it does need to based on high-quality reliable sources with reputations for accuracy, and it does need to accurately and proportionately reflect expert opinion in the field. MastCell Talk 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but lets not assume that just because a doctor writes something its automatically high quality or reliable. Doctors once prescribed cigarettes to 'improve breathing'. They can be wrong..DHawker (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.104.126 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Doctors are not reliable references. Published research experiments proving a point are references. You are looking for proof to claim something works. Pointing to a doctor who could have a bias doesn't count as proof--216.75.226.154 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources is a term of art here - it does not matter if you believe them, only that they are considered reputable. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 04:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Toxicities.

Ref 8 "Myoclonic status epilepticus following repeated oral ingestion of colloidal silver".

These are the details of the reference above supposedly linking CS with a death. As you will see, its barely credible the doctors can even blame colloidal silver for the initial seizure. Its totally unacceptable that Wikipedia contributors should go a step further and blame CS for the patients ultimate death. (Even the doctors don't go that far).

1. Man aged about 70 finds out he has prostate cancer.
2. Takes Bicalutamide (a prescribed drug with a few side effects) for 3 months.
3. Following this he tried "various nutritional and vitamin supplements, homeopathic remedies such as PC-SPES and essiac tea, and colloidal silver". (It's claimed his CS machine produced 4 litres of 10ppm in 30 minutes). He drinks about one ounce a day for 4 months. (An ounce is a very small amount for many consumers.)
4. Wife and daughter confiscate his CS machine and give it to doctors. (Presumably this ended his CS intake)
5. His prostate antigen level increases so he ceases all non-conventional treatment and undergoes 7 weeks (35 cycles) of radiation therapy.
6. Seizures begin 1 month after radio therapy ceases. (This appears to be about 3 MONTHS AFTER CEASING CS INGESTION)
7. He goes into 'Myoclonic status epilepticus' (a constant seizure) so doctors put him into an INDUCED COMA and pump him with various drugs.
8. Patient deteriorates to a persistent vegetative condition.
9. Patient is shifted to his home town hospital where he dies of PNEUMONIA 5.5 months after seizures begin. (The cause of death is absolutely clear in the report)

A quote from the report.."His (the patients) extensive investigations (tests), including cranial MRIs, somatosensory evoked potentials, routine and special CSF studies for viruses or other microorganisms, porphyria, Hashimoto thyroiditis, connective tissue disease, and anti-Hu antibodies, WERE NORMAL. Patient’s liver function was also NORMAL. Therefore, we HYPOTHESIZE the patient’s condition was caused by silver toxicity. Plasmapheresis resulted in significant improvement in his plasma (1.9 nmol/L), erythrocytes (2.2 nmol/L), and CSF (1.04 nmol/L) silver levels without any associated neurologic recovery.

In other words... "We checked everything and the only trace of anything we could find was silver, so we are HYPOTHESIZING the silver (that he stopped taking 3 MONTHS before the seizures!) must have done it! Sorry Mum and Daughter, its not our fault. He had a seizure because of that darned silver!" If I was a cynic I could suggest conventional medicine killed him, and colloidal silver became a convenient scapegoat..DHawker (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.104.126 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No. In other words, a peer-reviewed article in perhaps the most prestigious neurological journal in the world concluded that silver toxicity (related to colloidal silver) was the most likely cause of this person's death. Let's stop playing games; you can save the rhetoric for some other forum. MastCell Talk 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The 'peer reviewed' article conveniently (for the doctors) ignores all the authoritative and credible research (such as that compiled by the US Toxic Substances Agency) that has proven that it takes massive amounts of silver to cause any such condition. Doctors, on the other hand, continually refer to their 'peer's' case reports as 'reliable' sources. So we are winding up with theories based on hypothesis that ultimately get accepted as 'fact'. In this particular case we are supposed to accept that a tiny bit of silver caused a seizure 3 months after the patient stopped taking CS. (Lets just ignore the fact he was walking around and had 35 doses of radiotherapy just prior to the seizure!) As a walking talking example of how 'untoxic' colloidal silver really is, I draw your attention to Paul Karosan, the recently famous argyria 'victim'. He has drunk so much silver for 13 years he has turned blue, but he's still happily giving media interviews. THATS a fact, not a theory.
Anyway, how about changing it to 'In one case, doctors hypothesized that silver toxicity in a 71 year old man caused a seizure followed by pneumonia and death'. This is a true summary of the events and I don't see any Wiki rules that say a medical case report has to be reduced to one word..DHawker (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.104.126 (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The article notes that argyria is usually "benign", in that it can be cosmetically disfiguring but rarely causes life-threatening problems. However, the case report is what it is; death has been reported as a complication of colloidal silver use, though there is no reason to think that it's a common problem. I'm fine with changing the wording to read "...in at least one reported case, death", to emphasize that there's only been one reported death. I'm not willing to discuss this further, however, until you drop the ill-informed conspiracism and discuss specific changes to the articles in the context of this site's content policies. MastCell Talk 07:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting to doubt you've even read the case report. I've altered it to a brief and perfectly truthful summary of the case. It breaches no content policies that I can see..DHawker (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.104.126 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Except for WP:WEASEL. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed compromise wording. We shouldn't make it sound like people are dropping dead left and right from colloidal silver; they're not. On the other hand, we need not go out of our way to obscure the basics of the case report. MastCell Talk 23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No, the reference does not say he died as a result of taking colloidal silver. I'll repeat the doctor's own words. "We report a case of myoclonic status epilepticus that we hypothesize was the result of chronic ingestion of colloidal silver". Thats what this case report is about. They are talking about a seizure not a death. And note the word 'hypothesize'. It's their choice not mine. The doctors do not say he died of silver toxicity. They categorically state he died from pneumonia while he was in a vegetative state. He was in a vegetative state because doctors put him in in an induced coma. (He may have lived if they managed the coma differently. There's apparently a separate case report about it. Perhaps there were complications or they messed it up - I don't know so I can't assume). They put him in a coma to manage the seizure they hypothesized was caused by the colloidal silver he ceased taking 3 MONTHS before the seizure began. He died about 8 months after he stopped taking colloidal silver. There was a massive amount of medical intervention in the meantime. He did not simply drop dead or fall into a coma at the end of taking colloidal silver for 4 months, as could mistakenly be assumed from simply reading the abstract of the case. Most other readers will not spend the money to get the full case report. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration if you are going to use such reports as references? Your attempt to omit important facts and reduce this entire case to a single word 'death' is more weazily than anything you are accusing me of. Colloidal silver did not directly cause this death as you are trying to imply. The doctors don't say that, you can't say it either. My correction includes nothing that is not perfectly true. Focus on the content. You may not like it but they are the facts. Let them speak for themselves. I'll give you some time to think about it before I edit it again.DHawker (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)114.30.104.126 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Status epilepticus is not "a seizure", but a continuous, self-sustaining state of seizure activity which rapidly leads to permanent disability or death if untreated. If less drastic measures fail to control status epilepticus, one treatment of last resort is the induction a coma as a means of quieting the seizure activity and preventing imminent death. Being in an induced coma carries risks; for example, pneumonia is a possible complication. Comas are generally induced only when the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived risks.

In this case, the patient developed status epilepticus which the authors felt was due to colloidal silver use. The chain of events leading to the patient's death began with ingestion of colloidal silver and resulting status epilepticus. That was the author's conclusion, and thus the conclusion we reflect here, whatever our personal beliefs about silver or the medical profession. MastCell Talk 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine then lets say that. You can see my correction. I have not removed the reference to a death. But I've added a few brief words of explanation. I don't think theres a rule against this. If Arthur Rubin removes these words against with no better explanation than 'Weasel words' I'll be seeking an independent resolution. And I've removed the words 'at least' because its too vague for a subject like this. If you have references for other deaths then list them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHawker (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Fixed "at least one"; you're right, that's WP:WEASELly also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

just wondering what your backgrounds are

I've read the discussion with interest and am wondering what your backgrounds are... A little grammar school chemistry, for example, could solve the evident problems with the nature of a colloid. Alexaconn (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Alexaconn

This article isn't really about defining the exact chemical nature of a colloid. There's already a separate Wikipedia article about that subject. 'Colloidal silver' has become a generic, not entirely accurate, term for a drink that some people believe is a 'natural' antibiotic. Rightly or wrongly I think most people come here for information about the pros and cons, the uses and abuses, and the history etc of 'the drink', not for a chemistry lesson. I think the opening section of the article covers the chemistry sufficiently. (I didn't write it). My major complaint is that the 'pros' of colloidal silver barely get a look in, so in that sense I think this article is biased and not particularly enlightening.DHawker (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The best way to address that perceived "bias" is to bring to the table reliable sources attesting to the efficacy of colloidal silver. Having scanned PubMed, I was unable to find such sources. Similarly, a number of major medical organizations have found no evidence that colloidal silver is beneficial. It would be biased to assert otherwise, or to produce some sort of false equivalence between pros and cons when there are pretty much only cons to be found in reliable sources. MastCell Talk 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me expound on this. Personal websites are not reliable sources, so please stop reinserting them. If you believe there are sources supporting the use of silver, please list them here. I did not find any such sources on PubMed, and at least 3 major medical organizations have similarly concluded that there is no valid data supporting the use of colloidal silver in humans. MastCell Talk 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Your anti-colloidal silver bias is obvious in your editing. Stop adding references that simply repeat points that have already been made. The phrasing you try to use is clearly designed to reflect your personal opinion that colloidal silver is simply an internet scam that has no basis in scientific research. And stop presenting theories as facts. (Unlike you I've actually bought and read most of references you cite). I've tried to add one 'personal' website only. http://robholladay99.tripod.com/cs1.htm (Its not mine incidentally) . This is a list of over 100 references to recognised medical journals that provide a counter view to your argument that silver has no anti-microbial properties. The page I linked to contained no personal opinion, but you removed it on a technicality. How about obeying the spirit of that law rather than the letter? If you won't allow the page in I'll have to add every journal as a separate reference. Thats a lot of work so let me know now if its going to be an issue. If Arthur Rubin is listening I'd like an opinion on this.DHawker (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC). Please also note the sourcing rules open with the statement that they should be applied with 'common sense and the occasional exception'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSDHawker (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medicine section

I've removed the alternative medicine section added here. It suffers from numerous issues.

  1. It cites papers on silver sulfadiazine and other forms of silver. These sources may be appropriate at silver sulfadiazine or silver nitrate, but they do not describe colloidal silver, and they create an erroneous impression of medical support for the use of colloidal silver.
  2. It creates and then bashes a strawman argument. "Silver opponents" don't claim that neurotoxicity is a major problem; they "oppose" it because it has absolutely no proven benefit and it does have proven toxicity in the form of argyria, which is disfiguring but rarely if ever life-threatening.
  3. It cherry-picks a single phrase from a single case report to support the idea that colloidal silver is a useful treatment for CF. This is extreme undue weight, given the multiple quality secondary sources indicating that colloidal silver has no proven benefit - yes, colloidal silver is marketed by spinning anecdotal evidence to "counter" the actual data, but we don't do that here.
  4. Becker and The Body Electric are not a reliable source of medical information, and furthermore it deals with electrotherapy and silver ions in wound healing, not with colloidal silver as it is marketed and used.
  5. Bob Beck and the Beck Protocol have been the subject of extensive spam efforts here, but they lack any support in anything resembling a reliable source, and they are not appropriate encyclopedic material.

You may want to look at WP:MEDRS, which describes how the reliable-source guidelines can be applied to medical and health-related articles. Basically, we shouldn't be cherry-picking primary sources and studies to "counter" or "debunk" the clearly expressed opinion of expert bodies and reliable secondary sources. MastCell Talk 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly. If you have a problem. The courtesy is to list it here. Not simply wipe an entire section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHawker (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Secondly I should advise you that this new section was discussed with other contributors (who i believe to be neutral) prior to editing and the theme was approved in principal. So before you go making wholesale changes just take a breathe. If you have problems we can discuss them. The section may not be perfect but there's no need to go to war. I'll post this message then address your concerns individually.DHawker (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Don't treat the readers as imbeciles. The section is meant to be read as a whole with each sentence and each paragraph making a contribution to the subject that is clearly stated in the section heading (Colloidal silver as alternative medicine). I think readers can be trusted to understand this. I remind you that this whole colloidal silver article is in the Alternative Medicine category, its not in the chemistry category. Specifically regarding the first para, the fact silver has proven antimicrobial properties is at the foundation of the interest in colloidal silver as Alternative Medicine and is therefore relevant. The peptic ulcer case is old but is significant in that it is an example of the use of silver internally and belies your claim that silver was only used topically. Furthermore, in this paragraph I clearly do not claim colloidal silver works or has any medical support.
2. A Straw-man? Its a long stretch to say the opening line in para 2 misrepresents your position. You've included quotes ad nauseum to support your opinion that colloidal silver is toxic. And you insisted on including a dubious case attributing a poor neurological outcome to colloidal silver. The Pubmed reference is absolutely credible. Its very recent and it specifically addresses the total subject of neurotoxicity. It is not simply a third or fourth generation reference in a case report, as so many of your references are. (Look up 'snow-balling'). Anyway, if the opening sentence is misleading, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it.
3. Cherry-picking? Thats rich coming from someone who's attempting to reduce this whole article in the Alternative Medicine category to a series of negative quotes from the the medical establishment and the FDA. I believe the opening sentence of the para is a reasonable preface to what follows. Of course I'm using a Pubmed case report to support my contribution in this section. Doctors made these statements and Pubmed accepted them. It's a recent report and it specifically mentions colloidal silver from a health shop. I didn't embellish it, or misquote the doctors. I'm just presenting the facts. Instead of cystic fibrosis perhaps we could change this to a sick child.
4. Are you an expert on the history of the consumption of colloidal silver? If so, please replace this paragraph with a better explanation of why CS took off in the late 80's. The Robert Becker book is continually cited in articles on this subject. Becker created ionic colloidal silver directly in a wound and he got remarkable results. At the time this was a widely publicized and authoritative book from an orthopedic surgeon, so it obviously gave a confidence boost to those who were using and promoting colloidal silver. Although the medical details are not disputed as you imply, the book reference isn't included for its medical content, its mentioned for its historical value. I think thats made pretty clear.
5. I don't care too much whether this Beck Protocol info is in or out. I have no desire to spam the protocol into Wikipedia. But Beck 'the man' is interesting and is certainly a notable figure in the colloidal silver story. As far as I can determine he does seem to be the most likely person for inventing electrolytic colloidal silver. He claimed he did and I haven't uncovered anyone who disputes this. He was unconventional in some ways but he was absolutely no fool. The para was included to provide some historical information on the subject
Finally, There's plenty of interesting historical and background information in other Alternative Medicine topics. Look at Acupuncture and Iridology for example. Its legitimate to include such information here too. If you don't like it then dispute it or improve it if you can. Don't just delete it. And you'll see that those other subjects have plenty of Criticisms too, but they lay out their criticisms on the page for people to read and access. They don't simply censor their opponents right off the page as you are trying to do.DHawker (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed again - pending further discussion. Wikipedia is not here to promote "alternative treatments". Vsmith (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you already made up your mind its promoting alternative treatments? I say its providing encyclopedic information in a similar fashion to other alternative medicine topics. I will ultimately abide by the judges decision but I dont see why it should be removed while its being considered. Especially as it should be viewed in the context of the entire page.DHawker (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I call that WP:UNDUE weight for a section. None of that is about colloidal silver. A sentence or two (sourced by one or two of your references) that silver has been used as an antibiotic, and a sentence (if sourced) that colloidal silver is confused or conflated with those compounds to indicate it may be effective, seems adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And it may have been discussed with other editors off-Wiki, but I see no evidence that their advice was taken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well now I'm bamboozled as to what IS relevant to this article. If information about its history and use as an alternative medicine is not relevant, why does it have sections on History and Applications, Toxicities and Interactions, and Government Regulation? Aren't these sections there BECAUSE its consumed as an alternative medicine? And speaking of UNDUE WEIGHT, These sections have been loaded to allow the same points to be repeated over and over again. Isn't the argyria story just a bit laboured? And most of the Australian TGA story is just padding. Perhaps the whole article is in the wrong place. Why isnt it in the category of silver compounds like Silver sulfadiazineDHawker (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to write history of silver in medicine, I have no objection. This article is about colloidal silver, and references to other forms of silver are tangential, at best.
And it's not in the article with silver compounds because it isn't a silver compound. The fact that there isn't a clear definition of what it is is also relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Things that reliable sources have said about colloidal silver are relevant to this article, subject to editorial discussion. Material from unreliable sources is not appropriate. Material not related to colloidal silver is inappropriate, except perhaps to note that the interest in colloidal silver is based on the antimicrobial properties of silver sulfadiazine and other topical antibiotics. Certainly redunancy can be decreased, but lowering the bar for unencyclopedic material doesn't help matters in that regard.

If you are aware of a good, reliable secondary source describing the upsurge of interest in colloidal silver, please bring it here for discussion. Most of the material I've seen suggests that interest in and marketing of colloidal silver coincided with both the dissemination of marketing claims via the Internet and the deregulation of the dietary-supplement industry, both in the early-to-mid 1990's. That's based on brief comments from the PubMed-indexed papers cited in the article. MastCell Talk 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical sources

Some historical sources, apropos of the above conversation, which I've come across:

... thoughts? MastCell Talk 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

- A 1914 article? Anyway I've never, and wouldnt, try to place anything on Wiki about CS and cancer.
- Stan Jones made his own colloidal silver with well water and drank lots of it. He admits it was the color of ink. But I have no argument with the details. Bad CS can cause argyria.
- Rosemary Jacobs never ever drank colloidal silver water. Over 50 years ago she used high concentration silver nose drops every day for 3 or 4 years. She freely admits this. The product was Argyrol, it was the original 'mild silver protein' with a strength of about 30,000 ppm. It was nothing like the stuff that people drink today and call colloidal silver. This point never gets adequately explained when the case is mentioned.
- The Harvard Letter is laughable. I have a copy. The article is a pretty brief response to a 'letter to the editor'. It reads like a 'Dorothy Dixer'. The argyria victims mentioned are a circus attraction, silver stains left by acupuncture, silver stains deliberately caused by putting silver nitrate on stolen bank notes, and argyria caused by overdosing on smoking lozenges. I think theres only one case mentioned of argyria caused by 'colloidal silver'. They used tap water too.
- The TGA just copies the FDA. You don't seriously think Australia does any original research on something like this do you?
- Paul Karosan drank colloidal silver made with salt for three years. This increased the silver concentration hugely. Its probably 500+ ppm. He then changed to a baking soda additive. He's been drinking it for 14 years. He has obviously overdosed and continues to do so. He's blue but he's healthy.
- The NCCAM is not always a reliable source. It misrepresents theories as proof. (I've pointed out an example previously). The main foundation for the claim that the risks include neurologic problems (such as seizures), kidney damage, stomach distress, headaches, fatigue, and skin irritation. etc. is the THEORY that colloidal silver MAY cause the same symptoms as Metal fume fever. You'll find this out if you pay for the sources they quote. Doctors also use this sort of rubbish in their case reports.DHawker (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the sources are here mostly for comment because I'm not sure which, if any, belong in the article. The 1914 thing was mostly a historical curiosity. I'm not quite as dismissive of an entire continent (Australia). The individual cases of argyria are interesting, but probably more relevant at argyria than here; yes, I realize Jacobs didn't turn blue because of colloidal silver, but she speaks out mostly against CS these days. The NCCAM is a fairly useful source for alt-med topics - it certainly errs on the side of credulity, and it's much more reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) that 99% of the info on the Web about alt-med. MastCell Talk 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The NCCAM puts most of its resources into emphasizing the risks associated with alternative medicine, and they'll misrepresent the facts to do it. I've already pointed out that their website is misleading. And look at the board. http://nccam.nih.gov/about/advisory/naccam/roster.htm . The NCCAM charter states that out of 18 members only 3 of these 'shall represent the interests of individual consumers of complementary and alternative medicine.' I'd like to know who the 3 champions of alternative medicine are here. They don't exactly leap out. The whole board looks pretty conventional to me.DHawker (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Birdsal and Carlota appear to represent the CAMmies. One's a naturopathic doctor (not a real doctor), and one's an accupunturist. Everyone else looks to be good solid researchers, but none of their names strike my radar. If I had time, I'd check out each of their research credentials to see if they're doing some nutty stuff. There are a couple of AIDS denialists who have really good credentials, yet aren't even close to mainstream. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Look: people with a scientific perspective castigate NCCAM for being too credulous and sympathetic toward alt-med. People with an alt-med-friendly viewpoint criticize NCCAM for being insufficiently sympathetic. In other news, the sun rises in the east. That's an argument for another venue. The fact that you expect NCCAM to "champion" alternative medicine, rather than objectively assess what works and what doesn't, is interesting. In any case, NCCAM is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards - certainly leaps and bounds ahead of most of the Web-based material on colloidal silver - and one editor's personal animus toward NCCAM doesn't alter that aspect. MastCell Talk 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It used to be called simply (and more honestly) The Office of Alternative Medicine. The name was changed to the misleading title of The National Centre FOR Complimentary and Alternative Medicine in 1998. Its not FOR CAM.DHawker (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
NCCAM is "for" the scientific study of complemetary and alternative medicine. It's not "for" CAM in the sense of being an uncritical cheerleader, which is what you seem to have in mind. MastCell Talk 22:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Who's going to read their charter? Their title suggests they are 'pro' CAM. So if they bag something it has twice the impact because people think 'If THEY are bagging it, it must be REALLY bad'. I'm sure you understand this.DHawker (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
NCCAM is supposed to research with a NPOV. I hadn't read the CAM entry on colloidal silver before. It is very interesting how they completely leave out any information on the antibacterial properties except for references to how it is used in some current drugs (silver nitrate drops, etc.) Here is something they could say positive about colloidal silver, yet they very carefully make no mention of it. It is like they are cherry-picking only the negative to report. This really makes me wonder about their research in general. If anyone, they should know about the research that went into deciding to put silver in the drinking water of a space station and the research that Engineers without Borders used to develop their water filters using colloidal silver, it should be NCCAM. They should know how much colloidal silver was used successfully in the past and what it was used for. They probably have access to every medical journal out there. This is very disappointing. To say the least.
--stmrlbs|talk 17:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Understand that NCCAM focuses on alternative medicine. Silver-based topical antibiotics, like silver sulfadiazine, are recognized as useful and supported by clinical evidence for some indications. It's not "alternative" to put silver sulfadiazine on a burn victim. You may also be over-extrapolating the (mainstream) use of silver in water purification - that doesn't mean it's an effective oral antibiotic in humans. In Europe, ozone is widely used to disinfect the water supply, but you'd be crazy to inhale or ingest ozone to treat a bacterial infection. Right?

Colloidal silver (typically ingested) is marketed as an alternative remedy with a wide range of claims. NCCAM's business is to study these particular "alternative" claims scientifically. They concluded that there is no scientific evidence supporting them. Seems reasonable, right? MastCell Talk 22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Antimicrobial Proof

Colloidal silver (as used in medically prescribed eye and nose drops such as Argyrol) has proven to be anti-microbial over years of prescribed topical usage. In fact, the in-vitro antimicrobial properties of most forms of silver, silver ions, and silver compounds has been proven so conclusively that its not even an argument. Even the argyria references that this article is overloaded with usually concede that silver has had a legitimate place in medicine. As we've previously agreed that Colloidal Silver 'as marketed' can contain a mix of silver particles, silver compounds, and silver ions in pure water, common sense alone should tell us that colloidal silver is also antimicrobial, at least in lab tests. But fortunately, we don't have to rely on common sense as there are reliable references actually proving colloidal silver works in-vivo and I've included a PubMed reference of a recent lab test.DHawker (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to establish either that the PubMed article refers to colloidal silver, or to note prominently near the reference that it doesn't distinguish between colloidal and ionic silver. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I dont think we need to establish anything. The Pubmed article speaks for itself. They made some colloidal silver and it killed germs.DHawker (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The PubMed article speaks for itself, but you're trying to put words in its mouth. Less spin, please. There seems to be substantial agreement that ionic silver has antimicrobial properties. Colloidal silver is the issue for this article. The article you reference (PMID 18069039) says as much, in its introduction: The free silver ion is the active agent, and there is evidence that the antibacterial potency of silver is directly proportional to the concentration of silver ions in the solution. The antimicrobial activity of their "colloid" was entirely dependent on the ionic silver content. At the very least, this should be carefully spelled out rather than glossed over; the in vitro nature of the tests needs to be clear; and this should be mentioned in the body rather than the lead. MastCell Talk 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth. So I've reintroduced the reference using YOUR own wording.DHawker (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, Thank you!. At last a little glimmer of balance in this article!

Re my edit in the opening section. I'm not aware of silver iodine or silver chloride being sold as 'colloidal silver', so I removed it. (It had no citation anyway). As far as I know, commercially available high ppm colloidal silver is most commonly made by dissolving silver with nitric acid to produce silver nitrate. This is then mixed with sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) and gelatin. It's then diluted to the required strength with water. This type of colloidal silver is actually a pretty small part of the alternative medicine 'market'. By far the majority of commercial CS is made much more simply by using electrolysis. Low voltage and high voltage (spark/arc) methods both produce colloidal silver that is predominantly ionic but can have a significant particulate component.DHawker (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh... balance? I must have done something wrong. :) MastCell Talk 22:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I must be suffering from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome ('Loyalty to a more powerful abuser'). I'm so 'abused' I've become grateful for the tiniest little skerrick of kindness.:) DHawker (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Antimicrobial properties

Silver ions in solution have been shown to have antibacterial effects. However, before refrigeration, they used to put milk in silver pails or drop silver coins in to keep the milk fresh longer.. and this wasn't electrically charged silver. So, I think silver in itself also has antibacterial properties. Also, if you look in the old medical journals in the early 1900s, they write about using all kinds of silver solutions for varying medical conditions. They called it collosol sometimes. I looked up one reference: COLLOSOL ARGENTUM AND ITS OPHTHALMIC Uses. I'll try to find some other references for the history part of this article. When I read all this stuff about no clinical evidence that these compounds work.. I think this is downright nutty. It is like saying "Let's just forget that every doctor before antibiotics used silver solutions for all kinds of conditions". However, I don't remember reading anything doctors having patients ingest silver solutions (but I will check). I think the real problem is that not that silver solutions don't work, but that you don't know if what you are seeing on the label is what you are getting in the current market. --stmrlbs|talk 07:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, our article does note that silver solutions were widely used as topical antibiotics in mainstream medicine in the early 1900s. It also notes (correctly) that the use of silver compounds died out with the development of antibiotics (penicillin et al.) which were a) more effective and b) less costly. So I think we're covered there. You're correct that at no point did mainstream medicine advocate ingestion of large quantities of colloidal silver as they are currently marketed. There are currently no evidence-based medical uses for colloidal silver - this is both true and (more importantly, I guess) appropriately sourced. Doctors used bloodletting and mercury-based laxatives for a long time too. Yet these practices (with a few minor exceptions like the occasional leeching) have no current evidence-based indications either. MastCell Talk 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying about why silver solutions died out with the development of antibiotics. Perhaps more about how this happened would help the history of the article. But silver is being looked at again with the decreasing effectiveness of antibiotics with bacteria becoming resistant to more and more antibiotics. Silver solutions worked for antibacterial applications in the past- just because they are no longer in vogue does not mean that they are no longer effective. [2] I think the problem is more a question of which combinations are the most effective, and for what they should be used. They talk about the varying effectiveness of different combinations in the old medical journals. I will try to find these for the history part of the article.
Also, as far as evidence about ingested silver solutions, I am sure that Nasa did not install a system that produces drinking water for astronauts at a .5ppm level without a lot of research into the risks/benefits.
--stmrlbs|talk 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have some reliable sources you'd like to discuss, we could certainly do that. I'll say that from my perspective, a paper submitted to fulfill a college homework assignment isn't really what we're looking for (or if it is, I have a whole stack of reliable sources in my basement). MastCell Talk 03:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
MastCell, the paper that is already cited in the article, [3], the NASA paper has quite a bit about studies done on the absorption of silver and effects on organs, followed by their justification for what they used for the water system on the spacecraft. It also talks briefly about the effect of certain vitamin deficiencies on the toxicity of silver.
Water Disinfection from WHO which describes the actions of silver colloids in water (starting pg 155) against bacteria. Use of Colloids in Health and Medicine old book written in 1920 about the use of colloidal silver during that time. The "Flip Book" version is a very good use of the internet to go through this book. Chapter 8 and 9 are about silver colloids and experiments done, and how they used these solutions with patients. This book has a lot of references to articles in the medical journals of that time. Some of these old medical journal articles are still around.
--stmrlbs|talk 05:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you proposing we add to the article? I don't have a problem indicating that silver has been proposed to purify drinking water supplies in space. The WHO source indicates that it is one of about 30 possible methods of purifying water; that it may be useful on a household (not municipal) level in the developing world; and that it is 200 to 300 times more expensive than chlorination and thus somewhat impractical. I think we can briefly summarize these points in the article if you'd like. Our goal is accurately summarize the current state of human knowledge, and I would suggest that books published in the 1920s are not the best source of up-to-date medical and scientific information. Certainly such a book could support our section on the historical use of silver in the pre-antibiotic era, but we already discuss that. MastCell Talk 22:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
MastCell, I would like to use the 1920's book for the History section - not current use. There is plenty of evidence in current literature about silver and its various forms for current applications. I was just saying that this article makes it sound like there is no clinical evidence for any medicinal value for collodial silver when it was used in the past by what could be considered mainstream medicine at that time. It was used to kill bacteria. If it killed bacteria in the 1900s, chances are, it still does now. It seems they ran tests on that too, back then, to see which type of bacteria it killed. Now, I did find some passages about using it internally for some conditions, but I don't see anything about any official tests for that - so, imo, these are just accounts of off-label use back then. I that off-label use of medicines was as prevalent back then as it is now.
As for the collodial silver filters, in the WHO water treatment paper, they explain the advantages and disadvantages of each water treatment method. They do not look at just cost. They look at whether the country has the facilities or personel to keep up the technology associated with each method. They look at the cost of transport, the dangers of containment of chemicals, the side effects of each treatment. Silver’s apparent advantage for water treatment are that it does not produce any taste, odor or color in the treated water and that no by-products are formed as a result of its use. The methodology is very simple and easy to handle in rural areas of the developing world. This is a big factor - simplicity, and can the people in the rural areas maintain it.
Why did they choose silver instead of chlorine to disinfect the water on the spacecraft? Probably because they felt silver was a lot safer in an enclosed environment (this is my guess).
Anyway, I wasn't going to write a book about the filters - more detail about cost and the different options would be more appropriate for other articles. But it is a current application of colloidal silver, so I think a line or 2 is appropriate.
--stmrlbs|talk 08:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that last part; I think a few sentences on the use of silver as a water-purification agent would be completely appropriate here. MastCell Talk 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my cites. I appreciate it.
--stmrlbs|talk 17:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. MastCell Talk 17:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The citation for the ceramic filters sentence did not mention colloidal silver, just a coating; conveniently, I found a Guardian obituary that does specify. Not a big deal since they were in fact using the system treated by this article, but it would by nice if citations directly support all text. I also changed Engineers without Borders to Potters for Peace, as the latter is the specific organization deploying that particular system and the former is not mentioned in the NYT source. They have similar missions, but do not appear to be part of the same organizational structure. As there are a number of similar filtration systems, we might want a more general statement, though I am fine with it for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A 'coating of colloidal silver' is something of an oxymoron, although its true to say colloidal silver was the original source of the coating. But be careful. Delving into of the antimicrobial properties of other forms of silver has previously not been acceptable in this article. DHawker (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, tell me about it - but the NRS book seems to indicate that the term is being corrupted by non-physicists to also refer to the well-dispersed film produced from drying the suspension. Assuming they get the coating by soaking the porous ceramic ... anyway, that is immaterial. Much as I approve of clean drinking water, I would be okay with nixing the sentence if we think it is too off-topic. For now, I just took out the bit indicating that the silver particles would be both in suspension and attached to a surface. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The cites I had before from Engineers without Borders did explain the colloidal silver part. But these cites were dropped. It was Fernando Mazariegos,a Guatemalan chemist, who came up with the initial design for the filter. Then Rivera and he worked on perfecting it, and Rivera spent the next 25 years teaching developing countries how to make these filters. [4][5]
--stmrlbs|talk 05:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about Revert

As to the revert by Arthur Rubin [6], is the problem with Engineers Without Borders, or with the particular document?
Also, most of the colloidal silver solutions used in the past and out there on the marketplace now are a combination of both ionic silver and colloids - especially true if the method used to create the solution is electrolysis. So, I don't understand why the revert because the effect "might be" because of ionic silver?
Perhaps the article would be improved by a discussion of the different types of colloidal solutions? or more definition of the role ionic silver might play in these solutions?
--stmrlbs|talk 20:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

refactored the archive a little

When I read the archive to see what had been discussed before, some of it I couldn't make heads or tails of. I finally went through some of the early history, and realized that in the early history of this article, a lot of people left posts and didn't sign them. Or they would post a new section at the top of the page instead of the bottom. I moved a couple of these sections to the place they should have been posted. I think it is a little bit easier to read now. I was tempted to add signatures from the history, but.. I didn't want to "edit" other people's comments in old archives. If I find an appropriate template for "warning, unsigned and out of order posts in this section" template, I will add it. --stmrlbs|talk 21:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about out-of-order posts, but {{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}} are available to tag unsigned sections. (They are supposed to be substituted.) (This comment is made without checking what you've done.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will take a look to see what these templates do. it is the earliest couple of sections that are kind of mixed up. Plus, I notice one poster just deleted the comments of another poster.. no reason given. Guess they didn't like what the other guy said.
But, then later on, people seem to post in sequence and sign (or have signbot sign for them).
These old sections of the archive probably aren't that big a deal, but when I first read it, it played like a streaming consciousness from conflicting voices of a multiple personality.
--stmrlbs|talk 00:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I looked up all the unsigned entries and used the UNSIGNED template to document them. And as I went through the history, I took the new sections that had been added to the top instead of to the bottom, and moved them to the right place. So, I think it makes a lot more sense now.
I don't think I will do that again, though.. a lot of work. A bot could be written to figure out who posted unsigned entries, and to note when a new section was added out of order. Maybe I will suggest it, at the village pump, I guess.
--stmrlbs|talk 04:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for slogging through that; it is tedious, but should not be thankless. I believe that bot tasks are proposed at Wikipedia:Bot requests. I do not recall offhand ever seeing a RefactorBot, but that would sure be useful. If you find one extant or your proposal gets taken up, please drop a note on my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
When I was working with the history software, and "wiki-blame" (boy, I used that a lot tonight), I was thinking that it looks like there is code there that could be modified to do this. I was thinking about how it could be done as I was manually doing it. A check could be made when a header was added to see at what point it was added and just flag it if it wasn't at the bottom. And with all the history, a lot of analysis could be done to determine who said what in an old archive. That would be a nice bot to have around.
--stmrlbs|talk 06:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmm....

Both Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center no longer have information on Colloidal silver (which mean the links no longer work in the article). Wonder why? --stmrlbs|talk 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a fringe subject, so mentions in RS are often lacking. Fringe subjects are rarely covered in mainstream sources, and just leave it up to mainstream skeptical sources. Scientific skeptics are interested in the no-man's land which houses pseudoscience and quackery. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
except it was there before. Why would both places delete that particular page off their site around the same time? They still have other alternative subjects discussed. I just looked at the M.D.Anderson page on colloidal silver last week.
--stmrlbs|talk 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Good question. I have no idea. Try the Internet Archive. Fortunately there are numerous other RS that discuss CS. To find RS, one has to eliminate the promotional sites, so this search works pretty well. Even Dr. Weil, a well-known promoter of alternative medicine disses CS. This report in Neurology (journal) should give anyone something to think about. It's not as innocent as its promoters claim. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I don't believe colloidal silver is "innocent" or "villanous". I think the truth is somewhere between those two extremes.
Even WHO says in their document on water disinfection that:
Silver is not particularly toxic to human beings and, on being ingested, the
body absorbs only a very small fraction. Large doses of this metal used for certain
medical treatments have been found to cause discoloration of the skin, hair and
nails (argirosis), but no problem has been noted with the small concentrations needed
to disinfect water. The WHO has not proposed any guideline value for silver in
drinking water, precisely because of its relative safety. Treatment of drinking water
with silver produces no abnormal taste, smell or color. Nor are any DBP generated.
so, the problem seems to be in how much is too much. Imo, I think that a bit more science as to what causes these sides effects, like how much silver ingested for how long, and how other compounds speed or slow the effect would be more WP:NPOV, than either a sales pitch or scare tactics.
However, I am not sure whether this would be better in the argyria article or this article. Perhaps a sentence with some numbers here, and more details in the argyria article would be appropriate.
--stmrlbs|talk 03:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

← Er... the Sloan-Kettering link is still there. Go to the Sloan-Kettering link cited in the article. It brings up a (required) disclaimer - if you click on the "I agree" link, you are immediately taken to their page on colloidal silver, which is exactly as described in our article. I don't see the M.D. Anderson one up anymore. I'm not sure why, but if you'd prefer to remove the citation from the article, I'd be okay with that since the link is no longer current. MastCell Talk 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

oops. Thanks for pointing that out. As far as the M.D. Anderson link, I think BullRangifer replaced it with a link to the cached copy. --stmrlbs|talk 02:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't necessarily dispute the statement in the article but I'm not comfortable with a link to a snapshot of a google cache. MD Anderson have deleted the page for some reason. You can't imply the link is still endorsed by them.DHawker (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC) . Its like using an old edition of an encyclopedia because you don't like what the new edition says.
I agree. Especially since this isn't exactly hard to find information. Plus, I think there is already one link with similar information - the Sloan-Kettering link. What is official Wikipedia policy on linking to a cache copy?
--stmrlbs|talk 05:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The official policy is that we talk it out and decide what to do. :) There is some official guidance at WP:DEADREF. Personally, my test is what I would do if the shoe were on the other foot. I think that if a previously available, reliable "pro-colloidal-silver" reference a) existed, and b) subsequently became a dead link, I'd probably remove it from the article. On that basis, I'm fine with removing the M.D. Anderson link. I know a few people over there, so I could conceivably inquire informally as to whether they're simply reorganizing their website or have had a change of heart - I suspect the former, given the lack of any new or convincing evidence on colloidal silver - but that would be simply out of curiosity, and not suitable for incorporation in the article decision-making process. MastCell Talk 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought the official policy was to talk about it then remove it anyway. DHawker (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)114.30.98.109 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

legal status of colloidal silver and legal drugs containing it in Germany

User Stmrlbs asked me about that issue.

  • Gastrarctin® N by Serumwerke company Germany. An old fashion liquid drug used as drops, not very popular over here. Contains 0,25 grams of coll. silver in 100 g liquid, rest are water-extracts of Chamomile and Peppermint, gelantine and so on. That is a 2500 ppm silver concentration. Sold in 20 ml bottles. Indications: acute or subacute gastritis, enteritis.. Dosage: adults take daily from 60 to 80 drops, children up to 60. This means: assuming one drop is 4 ml: 0,04 * 80 grams is 3,3 grams max of that liquid per day. This equals to 8 mg silver daily as maximum. The bottle should then be empty after 6 days or so. Serumwerke company warns the user not to take that drug over a long time because of argyria-risk. Cases of argyria after the use of Gastrarctin are reported in the scientific litterature (Stadie V, Marsch WC 2004). A critique of that drug was also published in pharmazeutische Zeitung october 2007. This drug was used in the old-fashion so-called Rollkur-therapy (patient had to revolve or turn along his sagittal axis a few times in order to bring allegedly that drug in contact with all parts of the gut). My personal comment: this drug is obsolete. As an old fashion drug, a proof of its efficacy (AFAIK) in scientific studies was not necessary when it was introduced, it was introduced a long time a go. World health organization WHO recommends to limit silver-intake under 180 µg silver / day. The US-EPA has calculated in l985 an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 182 µg per day for an adult. Thats 5 times less than the maximum of Gastrarctin allowed.
  • Several homeopatic drugs containing a sort of suspicion of colloidal silver.
  • Silver sulfadiazine, used for burns.

I may quote several statements of German sources stating that C.S. is not allowed as OTC (Nahrungsergänzungsmittel) here and therefore some sellers of CS were punished in Germany so far. Also, machines delivering (or alledgedly delivering) homemade CS are considered 'drugs' by law here and need a certification. I am not aware of any. Some cases of argyria are known here after the use of homemade CS, but the number is inferior to the USA, where CS was or still is more popular.

Another comment: in Germany products containing silver (often combined with other substances) are sold to keep clean water as clean as possible over time (f.i. on sail boats, camping). But: they are not allowed to sterilize water. Please note the difference. Also, it is not allowed to be mixed in drinking water, as the federal laws are not allowing it. Sorry for my simple English, Michael Redecke (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I couldn't find much about the product except that it was used for stomach and intestinal inflammation, and nothing about studies. But most of the pages were in German, and I don't speak German. So, thank you, Redecke, for posting this information. and thanks also for te WHO and US-EPA recommendations for daily intake. --stmrlbs|talk 01:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
My name is Michael ;-) There are no recommendations for any silver-intake. Silver plays no known role in human biochemistry. But, as silver can be found in high concentration in some food, these ADI values help to estimate possible risks. cu, Michael Redecke (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Michael, I know that there is no recommended intake for silver. I meant, what you said about the upper limit without problems. --stmrlbs|talk 03:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did the "official data" on Colloidal Silver come from?

Five minutes of research reveals that Colloidal Silver is apparently dangerous, ineffective and should be banned and that people selling it or promoting it are frauds. One of the first things you learn about it from the official medical community (AMA?) is that it turns your skin blue, people die from it and it damages your organs, liver, brain etc.

Fifteen minutes reveals that there are a couple of cases of blue/gray skin from very large amounts of silver, and that one person was said to have died from silver toxicity although a deeper evaluation of that claim leaves me doubting it.

I dont know if it works of not, but why is the AMA and mainstream medical establishment so against it? Given the actual data it just seems strange. Raintown1 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of evidence for antibacterial use. But not much evidence for claims of boosting the immune system. At least not that I've found. --stmrlbs|talk 07:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the AMA is really against it. They just seem indifferent to it to me, perhaps because they know its pretty harmless really. The most vocal opponents are the attention seeking scaremongers who have no personal experience with colloidal silver whatsoever. But they do 5 minutes research then feel qualified to plaster their hysterical opinions all over the web. DHawker (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for the AMA - and really, painting the AMA as some sort of vast, all-powerful conspirator suppressing cheap, natural cures is a bit stale and dated. I suspect that the attitude of most scientists is - as always - prove it. If colloidal silver works, prove it. In the absence of any sort of scientific data, of course it's going to be ignored. That's the default position - you don't assume something works and then demand other people prove it worthless. If a handful of reputable medical/scientific sites carry evaluations of colloidal silver, it's probably to counter the more questionable and sometimes downright fraudulent claims with which the substance is marketed - that is, out of an interest in consumer education and protection. MastCell Talk 18:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

source for decline in use of colloidal silver

in reference to this revert [7], how does this statement from [1] :

Silver has had some medicinal uses going back for centuries. However, more modern and less toxic drugs have eliminated most of those uses.

become this:

"However, with the development of more effective, less expensive antibiotics such as penicillin and sulfanilamide, medical use of colloidal silver ceased.[1]

I don't see anything in the source about cost, antibiotics, or naming specific antibiotics like penicillin or sulfanilamide. It goes from "have eliminated most of those uses" to "medical use of colloidal silver ceased". This seems like original research to me. I'm not saying it isn't true, just saying that this source does not support this statement. I'm sure a better source could be found. But until then, I think the statement should reflect the sources that are referenced to support them. --stmrlbs|talk 00:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

if its not in the source, a source should be found or it should be removed 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's in the source(s). Our job is not to legalistically quote sources, but to summarize them. That is a reasonable summary of the source. Other sources include Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center ("The use of silver medicinals to treat disorders such as epilepsy, gonorrhea, and colds was not uncommon until the mid-20th century. However, silver was replaced by safer therapies in the recent decades.") See also PMID 15748553 ("In the early 1900s argyria was seen more commonly because it was associated with silver being used in various medications. However, with an increasing number of reports of problems associated with silver ingestion (including intestinal ulcers and argyria) and with the development of more effective pharmacologic alternatives, physician-directed use of silver-containing products declined.") And others.

As a side note: let's not get bogged down in hairsplitting (and this is hairsplitting - the sources clearly support the wording in question). When this sort of thing happens, we get closer and closer to plagiarizing - that is, quoting verbatim - because of unreasonable demands that any summary or paraphrasing is "not in the sources". The cited sources paint a very clear and coherent picture - silver was widely used in the early 1900's, but then safer/more effective antibiotics were developed and medical use declined and ultimately ceased. This isn't "original research" - it's basic editing. MastCell Talk 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell, I do not see cost discussed in these references either. I agree that they talk that fewer side effects were a factor in switching to more modern medicines, but I don't see cost discussed. To me, "fewer side effects" or "greater effectiveness" are not equivalent with "costs less". Medicines are replaced with newer medicines that are proven to work better and/or safer all the time. That's what clinical trials are about. But, it doesn't mean the new medicine is necessarily cheaper. There are expensive antibiotics as well as cheap antibiotics.--stmrlbs|talk 05:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands is fair. (i.e. penicillin was less expensive/more effective). Sources can certainly be found stating medicines like Argyrol were costly to produce. They were made of silver after all. Further, I'd sure hate to see an argument started over whether silver is less toxic or more toxic than modern antibiotics. ( Just look at the wiki article on the side effects of tamiflu.)DHawker (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Toxicity doesn't exist in a vacuum. Homeopathic remedies are also less "toxic" than Tamiflu, but they don't do anything. The fundamental concept here is called a risk/benefit ratio. If the benefit of a substance is zero - say, in the case of colloidal silver - then any risk is excessive. On the other hand, if a drug - let's say cisplatin - can cure metastatic testicular cancer, then its undeniably severe toxicities may be acceptable. MastCell Talk 18:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
since colloidal silver was used by doctors for years for all kinds of ailments, then I don't think the implication that colloidal silver "doesn't do anything" applies. It is like saying that because aspirin has been replaced for the most part by other medicines because of Reys Syndrome and stomach problems, that aspirin "doesn't do anything". As far as risk, sometimes that changes from the time some new medicine/therapy is introduced. When radiation first came into use, it was heralded as the great new cure for cancer, and other solutions were reject because they were "greater risk", and radiation was "harmless". They did not know the risks of radiation until later. So, I do think that when antibiotics were introduced, they probably were much more effective than they are today, because they didn't have the problem of antibiotic resistance like they do now. So, the part about colloidal silver being phased out because of antibiotics rings true for that time. I don't know about cost, because I have yet to read about the cost of antibiotics back then. But, since this seems to be common knowledge, I will take everyone's word for it.--stmrlbs|talk 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. Curious analogy; far from being replaced, aspirin remains one of the most widely used medicines in the world, and has an extensive evidence base supporting its use for both analgesia and the prevention of cardiovascular events.
  2. The fact that colloidal silver was used for many years does not imply anything about its effectiveness - this is a classic fallacy. Bloodletting and mercury-based laxatives were employed by physicians for hundreds of years. They have since been surpassed by safer and more effective treatments. I don't think any reasonable person would claim the historical use of bloodletting as evidence that it is effective in treating illness.
But I think I'm contributing to dragging this off-topic. It sounds like we agree on article content. MastCell Talk 20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Since bloodletting has been compared to colloidal silver more than once as two practices that "don't work", I would like to point out that leeches were a popular method of bloodletting. If you look at leech and hirudin, you will see that "In 1884, the British physiologist John Berry Haycraft discovered that the leech secreted a powerful anticoagulant, which he named hirudin, though it was not isolated until the 1950s, nor its structure fully determined until 1976. ... This has led to the development and marketing of a number of hirudin based anticoagulant pharmaceutical products such as Lepirudin (Refludan) and Desirudin (Revasc/Iprivask). Several other direct thrombin inhibitors are derived chemically from hirudin." So, even though the mechanism was not understood, I'm sure that the blood thinning effect might have produced some of the effects that "letting the bad spirits out" by bloodletting accounted for. However, now that the mechanism of action is known, they are finding new uses for those little leeches FDA Gives Leeches a Medical Makeover.--stmrlbs|talk 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Leeches are presently considered useful because they have been subjected to scientific study, not because they have been used for centuries. Do you understand the indications that leeches are used for today? They're quite different from the historical indications for bloodletting. The FDA piece you helpfully linked begins: "For thousands of years, leeches have been worming their way in and out of medicine as a questionable cure for anything from headaches to gangrene." Right now, colloidal silver is where leeches used to be - promoted as a questionable cure for everything from AIDS to swine flu. Maybe someday colloidal silver will acquire the scientific evidence base that leeches currently enjoy, but right now there's no comparison. MastCell Talk 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The modern use of CS has got nothing to do with ancient superstitions and practices. The chemistry behind the use of colloidal silver makes perfect sense. Hundreds of scientific papers prove that silver kills germs in lab tests. And theres a mountain of anecdotal 'evidence' suggesting it does similar things when ingested. And its safe, and its dirt cheap. We just lack the clinical trials to bring all the pieces together. DHawker (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Great. When those clinical trials show that colloidal silver is the best thing since sliced moldy bread, then it can go here. Until then, it's just another hokey alternative medicine. eaolson (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence that the modern use of CS is not because of ancient superstitions and practices. The scientific studies are generally inconclusive that it has an effect of any sort in vivo. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Your first sentence is just crazy. And the hundreds of scientific studies I mentioned above were in-vitro. I made that clear. I said 'in lab tests'. 114.30.98.109 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The article implied (the last time I read through it in detail) in vivo; I have no objection to a note that it can be used as an external disinfectant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

this seems to be a failed verification issue... the sources mentioned dont mention penicillin or sulfanilamide so how can we be accurately summarizing the source if we are mentioning them? the source used only seems to say that silver is put forward as an alternative to antibiotics but doesn't say that cheaper/better antibiotics has resulted in silver not being used anymore... if another reference says that then lets use that reference instead/as well... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever - if you don't want to mention penicillin and sulfa by name, then fine. The rest of your objections seem to be based on not having read this section of discussion. Several solid sources were presented making the point that the use of silver declined and vanished with the advent of safer and more effective alternatives. It's a bit mind-boggling to hear the repeated assertion that the sources don't say this. They do. MastCell Talk 22:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it isn't so mind-boggling if you do not have a medical background and you look up the source to read more about what it says here. The source does not talk about cost, and does not mention any specific antibiotics. But, Mastcell, since you seem to feel it is so obvious, then I will assume that either you feel all antibiotics are equal, and therefore to name any 2 is valid. Or you know that these two were the first introduced to replace antibiotics. But this particular source does not say that either.
I think that we agree these statements are true, but that the source does not really say this. Perhaps there are better sources that do say this. I will try to find a better source. --stmrlbs|talk 00:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well.. I can't find this in anything that is a reliable source. But, I would say just leave it with the idea that if someone finds a better source, then replace the source. --stmrlbs|talk 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If the source being used says nothing about costs or specific antibiotics then we cannot just insert such assertions without violating WP:OR. If this is truly the case, the offending passages should either be mark with a "verification needed" note or be removed wholly from the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and tagged the source as I could not personally find any support in the source for the statement it is attributing. The source is certainly not supportive of the subject, but AFAIK it doesn't mention anything about the historical context (the transition to other cheaper, more effective antibiotics). Another source needs to be found to support this text or it should be removed. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The cited source says: "Silver has had some medicinal uses going back for centuries. However, more modern and less toxic drugs have eliminated most of those uses." You don't find that to say anything about the transition to more effective antibiotics? How about when another reliable source says: "The use of silver medicinals to treat disorders such as epilepsy, gonorrhea, and colds was not uncommon until the mid-20th century. However, silver was replaced by safer therapies in the recent decades"? I have cited the second source and adjusted the text to more closely parrot them. MastCell Talk 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As I said (and Strmlbs seems to have pointed out several times above), the source said nothing about cost or medicinal effectiveness. The source (and now both sources) talks about safety being the cause of the transition. Thank you for removing the cost and medicinal effectiveness from the passage. That should solve the WP:OR issue, no? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

comments

As to the benefits of colloidal silver and the to person below that says "it does not work" !! Colloidal Silver contains the element Ag+ ( Silver) which is used in the FDA approved product below Silver Sulphadiazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_sulfadiazine

Well-known proprietary brand names are Silvadene and Flamazine. The medication is also marketed under Kendall as Thermazene, with the aforementioned silvadene still functioning as a genericized trademark. If Ag+ silver does not work then why has it been approved by the FDA in the above products and is available in all USA hospitals for Burns and most definitely works, the facts are irrefutable it destroys Bacteria . Unlike other FDA approved Medicine I.E chemotherapy and Radiation for the treatments for Cancer. Doctors are part of the medical gang which kills more people than they cure mis- diagnosis for one. Doctors do not treat the cause they treat the symptoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordytuf (talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You had me going until the last few sentences, when I realized you weren't serious. Silver sulfadiazine is used as a topical antibiotic. I don't think there's any dispute that silver can be an effective topical antibiotic. However, colloidal silver is promoted with claims that, if ingested, it can treat or cure various illnesses. There is no evidence to support such claims, nor do they make any particular sense. Unless, perhaps, you believe that eating a bunch of triple antibiotic ointment will make you healthier? MastCell Talk 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
this is perhaps not the best argument/comparison. People use antibiotic cremes and ingest antibiotics. Just because something is effective in a creme doesn't mean that another form of the same thing won't be effective if ingested. --stmrlbs|talk 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
That's sophistry. The point is that some antibiotics are effective topically but not orally. To conflate the two, and imply that topical effectiveness equals oral effectiveness, is nonsense. But that's exactly what the commentator here has proposed. Check the post that kicked off the thread. MastCell Talk 04:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What is sophistry and conflation is to imply that because a person would not ingest a tube of suladiazine, that this somehow proves that ingesting silver in any form would have no benefits. If this were true, then there would be no topical antibiotics that would be beneficial if used orally. But there are. Clindamycin comes to mind as an antibiotic that is used both topically and orally .
I am not saying this proves that silver would provide a beneficial effect if ingested orally. I don't know. I'm afraid that until some kind of clinical trial is done with colloidal silver, the effects will remain unknown. I'm just saying your argument made no sense to me --stmrlbs|talk 05:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Gordytuf, Most of the evidence I've seen on silver is that it is effective as an antibacterial agent. I think more than an antibacterial agent is needed for cancer or we would have conquered cancer a long time ago. So, I don't understand the comparison of silver to chemo.
actually this whole section doesn't make much sense to me.
--stmrlbs|talk 05:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdated sources

I'm not totally sure what to make of these edits. On the one hand, I applaud the desire to fill in details about the historical use of silver. On the other hand, it raises some interesting points about using extremely outdated sources reflecting an understanding now known to be incorrect. For example, the edits cite the use of silver "internally for bacterial intestinal disease such as sprue." Of course, celiac sprue is not a bacterial disease. It's an autoimmune disorder, a hypersensitivity to wheat gluten. Now, in the early 20th century, some physicians thought it might be a bacterial disorder - it wasn't until the 1940's or 1950's that the true nature of the disease, and the link to wheat gluten, were demonstrated.

But someone reading the article might come away with the erroneous impression that sprue is a bacterial disease, because we've rather carelessly recapitulated a medical article from 1913 - let me repeat, 1913 - as if its assertions were completely valid today. I guess what I'm saying is that we need to be more careful that these sources are used solely to provide historical context. If you're going to cite a medical article from 1913, then you probably ought to be extra-scrupulous about repeating its claims without qualification or context. MastCell Talk 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it an assumption on your part that it is celiac sprue? Isn't tropical sprue caused by bacteria? They talk about treating military men in this edition stationed in other parts of the world - like India. This doctor doesn't specify the type (probably because he did not have the tests to differentiate). Whatever the type of sprue, the solution seems to have helped, if you read the account.
As for using "outdated" sources, as you call them, I think to use articles written by physicians in medical journals at that time about their use of colloidal silver is entirely appropriate for the history part of this article. As for the understanding of how something works changing as we gain more knowledge about the world, this does not negate how it was used by doctors in the past. --stmrlbs|talk 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it may be talking about tropical sprue. The distinction between tropical sprue and celiac sprue was not understood until the 1940's or 1950's, so that's my fault for not putting on my 1913 blinders before assessing the claims attributed to that source. In the US and Western Europe, "sprue" is generally understood to be celiac sprue. Even in the tropics, the incidence of tropical sprue has dropped substantially over the past 30-40 years in conjunction with better hygeine and (surprise) effective modern antibiotics, while the incidence of celiac sprue is rising considerably. Assuming that a good portion of our readers hail from the English-speaking countries, where celiac sprue is quite common and tropical sprue practically unheard of, we should probably tighten up the wording so that they are not left, as I was, with the impression that we're claiming celiac sprue to be a bacterial disease. As a separate matter, the treatment of tropical sprue was one of the first success stories for modern antibiotics (in this case, Prontosil, a sulfanilamide, see PMID 14217136), which supports one of the other historical strands - the supplantation of colloidal silver by more effective modern antibiotics. Again, I have no problem with using 95-year-old medical literature in the history section, but I'd like to avoid misleading spillover like claims that "sprue" is bacterial. MastCell Talk 23:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I also removed the {{failed verification}} tag from the subsequent sentence. It's an inappropriate use of the tag. We had this discussion already, and I thought we'd reached agreement. If you feel that the names "penicillin" and "sulfanilamide" should be removed, then I guess I won't stand in your way, though I think it's kind of petty since the meaning is obvious. But let's not pretend that the sources don't support the general statements in our article - that use of colloidal silver by mainstream medicine vanished with the advent of safer/more effective/possibly cheaper modern antibiotics. The tag made it seem like that statement had "failed verification", when of course it hasn't. MastCell Talk 23:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
MastCell, if you look at the history, I was not the one who put in the verification tag. We agreed on that, like you said, and that is why I didn't do this. And no, I do not have sock puppets, nor am I a puppet. --stmrlbs|talk 01:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right, and I should have clarified that I wasn't addressing you specifically with the second comment. I noticed the tag while going back to work on the sprue issue, and the edit-summary field was too small to explain my removal, so I explained the rationale here. I know you didn't add it, and I didn't mean to accuse you of sockpuppetry. Perhaps I should have started a new section to explain the tag removal, but I thought I could lump them together. My bad. MastCell Talk 03:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Using colloidal silver to produce feminized cannabis seeds.

As discussed here http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=60610 colloidal silver is used as a means of creating cannabis seeds that produce 100% female plants. Just pointing it out, if anyone is interested thay can add that to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.201.154 (talk • contribs) 17:28, June 15, 2009

Even if that were a reliable source (which it clearly is not), it probably wouldn't be appropriate for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not? If it was true it would be a "Current Application". DHawker (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. It's still not a reliable source. current application, indeed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Well is wikipedia a good enough source ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)_cultivation, right there under feminized seeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.250.162 (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I looked it up yesterday, and this is a very interesting use of colloidal silver, not just because of how it is used for cannibus cultivation, but how colloidal silver (and silver ions in general) is known to inhibit ethylene synthesis. The ethylene is a plant hormone that is involved with plant growth, and florists use colloidal silver and other ethylene inhibitors to "slow the growth" to keep the plant "fresh" so that it doesn't bloom and die as fast. I've read about using it on plants on alternative sites, and gardening sites, but you hear a million uses and I figured that sometimes people find something is good for one thing, and start using it for everything. I didn't put too much stock into it, but, now I can see where there might be something to it. I'll have to try this next time I cut some flowers from the garden. It is also used in plant culture medium, and in the male / female plant manipulation, .. which is probably where cannibus growers picked up the idea. I will add something about what I found with some good sources today --stmrlbs|talk 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical applications.

This is the exact quote from NCCAM. "Silver has had some medicinal uses going back for centuries. However, more modern and less toxic drugs have eliminated most of those uses. A few prescription drugs containing silver are still available." The words 'silver' and 'colloidal silver' are not interchangeable. If we quote or summarize a source we should not use the word 'colloidal silver' if the authors only used the word 'silver'. DHawker (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, when they talk about antibiotics having fewer side effects than antibiotics, they are talking about the simple antibiotics first introduced - penicillin. Some of the antibiotics offered now have quite a few side effects. Gentamicin comes to mind - something I used 4 - 6 times a day for 5 weeks to clear an infected ulcer in my dogs eyes (my vet prescribed it). It didn't work - my doggies's eyes were stil vampire red after 5 weeks. I switched to a colloidal silver solution recommended by a nurse friend of mine who uses it on her animals. It did more in one week to clear up my dog's eye ulcers than the gentamicin did in 5 weeks.. without the risks of Gentamicin#Side_effects. I wondered why the Gentamicin didn't work, though. I think of bacteria resistance as being a problem in hospitals. But, perhaps not. I can't think of another reason why the gentamicin didn't work other than bacterial resistance?.. but it didn't do diddly squat for my dog's eyes. I'll have to ask my vet when I see her.
Other side effects from antibiotics: [8]

Common side effects of antibiotics include upset stomach, diarrhea, and, in women, vaginal yeast infections. Some side effects are more severe and, depending on the antibiotic, may impair the function of the kidneys, liver, bone marrow, or other organs. Blood tests are sometimes used to check for effects on kidney and other organ function.Some people who take antibiotics, especially cephalosporins, clindamycin Some Trade Names: CLEOCIN, or fluoroquinolones, develop colitis, an inflammation of the large intestine. This type of colitis results from a toxin produced by the bacteria Clostridium difficile, which is resistant to many antibiotics and which grows in the intestines unchecked when other normal bacteria in the intestine are killed by the antibiotics (see Clostridium difficile–Induced Colitis). Antibiotics can also cause allergic reactions. Mild allergic reactions consist of an itchy rash or slight wheezing. Severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) can be life-threatening and usually include swelling of the throat, inability to breathe, and low blood pressure.

This colloidal silver article implies antibiotics have practically no side effects. I think this needs to be a bit more specific as to what antibiotics the article is talking about. --stmrlbs|talk 19:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
That is a bit unexpected. I recall you and at least one other editor proved most unwilling, to the point of gratuitous obstruction, to mention the word "penicillin" as one of the antibiotics which supplanted colloidal silver. You know, it was just me spouting original research back in May. But now that you think the article is too antibiotic-friendly, it's OK to mention penicillin? Am I parsing this correctly? Because on the surface, it looks like you're now willing to accept what you consider original research, because it advances your POV. Am I missing something?

On the topic at hand, antibiotics are a very diverse group of substances. Some are safer than others; penicillin is actually not among the "safest" of antibiotics. In each case, the decision to use or not use a specific antibiotic is made by considering the severity of the underlying condition, the available effective alternatives, and their side effects. This is called a risk/benefit ratio. Of course, it assumes that an antibiotic has some effectiveness; for a compound like colloidal silver, which has no evidence of any efficacy, any risk would be unacceptable. I would prefer that we not cherry-pick a few side effects to present in isolation as a scare tactic, as it's misleading at best. MastCell Talk 01:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell, I realize that I had a memory lapse and forgot that antibiotic was removed from the article completely in lieu of finding a better source. But with the source that was given, the sentence specifying "antibiotics" was OR because it stated conclusions that could not be derived from the source cited. If you will read the rest of what I said back in May, you will see that I said this, This seems like original research to me. I'm not saying it isn't true, just saying that this source does not support this statement. I'm sure a better source could be found. But until then, I think the statement should reflect the sources that are referenced to support them. Let me repeat this part: "I'm sure a better source could be found." I still say this. But.. did you expect me to find this source? You were the one who wanted those details in the article, so I figured you would take some time to find another source. I looked, but most of what I found were articles from sites selling colloidal silver, which are not reliable sources. However, you have access to all medical journals, so, I'm sure it would be easy for you to find a source that supports your statement. I think this is a better solution than holding it against people that point out OR from sources given. --stmrlbs|talk 02:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Medical journals are not particularly useful here, because there is very little of substance in the peer-reviewed medical literature on colloidal silver. That's a common problem with fringe topics. What you see here is what I could find; I'm the one who located and added virtually all of the independent, reliable sources in this article, so I've looked. I'm not sitting back and demanding you do my work for me - I've already done most of the heavy lifting on this article. I'm not aware of any additional useful sources, having performed what I consider a fairly complete search. You can either chip in some additional reliable sources yourself, or you can re-evaluate the ones I've produced, which were previously unsatisfactory. MastCell Talk 04:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Gimme a break Mastcell. Your so called 'heavy lifting' has simply been looking at the free briefs of articles publish on Pubmed. If it's negative about colloidal silver you use it. Nothing you have written suggests you have actually bought and read any of the complete articles. I have, and I can tell you most of them are pretty flimsy. They usually use very old or barely relevant research (using other forms of silver) to associate negative outcomes with the use of colloidal silver. DHawker (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Those sources are the best available, according to my understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, and thus form the basis of the article. I don't actually have a litmus test as to whether sources are "negative" about colloidal silver; if you think I've been hiding away favorable reliable sources, please enlighten me with specifics, because I'm certainly doing no such thing. Alternately, consider the possibility that colloidal silver is generally understood by reputable, scholarly sources to be ineffective and potentially harmful. Further consider the possibility that a respectable, serious encyclopedia will reflect that conclusion. The best use of time might be find additional reliable sources; less productive uses would include... well, pretty much everything on this talk page. MastCell Talk 07:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
So you don't deny you've never read any of the full versions of the Pubmed articles you regularly cite.DHawker (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
So you've read the articles, and they're flimsy, but you can only attack the editor rather than improving the article? You're really asking to be taken seriously. Nevard (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't deny never having not read the articles I don't refrain from citing. Was that the question? :) In seriousness: I've read the full text of most of the articles cited here (but not all, as some are not easily available to me). I'm entirely comfortable that all of my edits are soundly based on the sources and accurately represent them. If I haven't read the full text of a source, then I don't extrapolate anything beyond what is available in the abstract, to avoid misrepresenting it. You accuse me of not accessing the full text of the articles, while Strmbls simultaneously accuses me of "having access to all medical journals" (and abusing that access). What a great editing environment we have here. I'll take your response as a "No, I am not aware of any additional reliable sources"; that's usually a suitable parsing of this sort of line of attack. MastCell Talk 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed, MastCell? I never accused you of abusing anything. I just said that you have access to the full articles in medical journals. However, I do realize that I did assume that you had access based on certain remarks you've made, and perhaps I'm wrong. But, my point is that anyone who has access to the full articles in medical journals because they are a doctor or work in a research area, etc., automatically has access to many more "reliable" resources than the average joe who is left to try to find something "ok" on the internet or at the local library. Sometimes, the abstract has a lot of information, sometimes it is abysmal. If you wish to take this personally, well, that wasn't my intent, but I would like to remind you that you have thrown out quite a few insinuations yourself, such as "Because on the surface, it looks like you're now willing to accept what you consider original research, because it advances your POV." And, btw, I found a source that does support the gist of the use of silver declining with the advent of antibiotics and have added it. --stmrlbs|talk 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the source. MastCell Talk 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Use as disinfectant

I don't believe it's true that the UN report has "no "top" rank", with solutions "adv/disadv depending on location and circumstances". If a method "fall[s] somewhere in between" "the most suitable method[s]", and those which are "overly obtuse", it certainly isn't in the top rank. The report places silver-based methods amoung the "Alternative disinfection methods" because there is "No practical method for rural use".. availability of the equipment and consumables is "Generally low" and rather importantly for any major public works project (rather than something flying up into space to cater for a few people a few times) it is "Much more expensive than hypochlorite". Nevard (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, it says "no practical method for rural use", then in the next line, it says "Good option for household water disinfection". However, I see your point about their use of "alternative". The problem is the equipment, and they seem to have gotten around that with ceramic filters coated with colloidal silver.. however, this is another source. The location is important, because they have set up chlorination, only to have it fail because there was no one to maintain the equipment or import chemicals, etc. Plus, some communities would not accept the change in the taste of the water. The advantages of silver was its low toxicity, it doesn't affect the taste of the water, and there is no danger in transport for remote locations.
So, what do you think the paper says is the top ranked source? --stmrlbs|talk 05:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there is a top ranked source- there are indeed top solutions which are appropriate on different scales. However, no form of silver treatment, especially the filtration method which the paper recognizes as the least effective, is one of them. Charming human interest story though. Nevard (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about "charming" - but I think that introducing any way to disinfect water in developing countries is a worthwhile effort. Hey, if it is good enough for NASA, who is in the position to maintain the needed technology, then I think it must be pretty good.--stmrlbs|talk 06:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Colloidal Silver Products". National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. December 2006. Retrieved 2008-10-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver/Archive_2&oldid=1088460472"