Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Biased Colloidal Silver Article

This article is extremely one sided, on the verge of propaganda, and only researched from the point of view that colloidal silver is a scam. Why go to the effort to write such an article if you aren't going to present ALL the information, if you're going to leave out important truths just to make you're OPINION seem like fact? I have used colloidal silver for various levels of infections and gotten great results every time, with children and adults. The thing I think a lot of people forget when they are trying to be "scientific" is to research ALL available information, not just what supports the OPINION they've already decided to have. Certain persons are seemingly afraid of handling any part of their own health care, and would rather defer to a doctor for any cut, bruise, or mild infection. It's o.k. to know things about your body and take care of YOURSELF. In our modern western world, drugs and doctors have become god-like entities to NEVER be questioned. Antibiotics are given out like candy, with less and less effectiveness over the long term. Please...use all parts of you're brain, and stop spreading misinformation to people who really want facts.Vinland999 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As you feel this article is biased, perhaps you could help remedy the problem. It's certainly possible that we've overlooked sources that paint colloidal silver in a more positive light. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, and is intended to be a serious, respectable reference work summarizing the current state of human knowledge. To that end, we value solid, reliable sources (as detailed here and here). If, after perusing those guidelines, you find such sources that we've overlooked, please present them so they can be discussed and incorporated. On the other hand, please recognize that testimonials are best suited for late-night infomercials and paid advertising, but are not particularly useful for a serious encyclopedic article on colloidal silver. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if the article isn't factually biased its certainly biased in its structure. Silver has 'no medical support' is repeated 7 times in assorted ways. 'Silver is toxic' is also repeated 7 times. Is that typical of a 'respectable reference work'? DHawker (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that most of the studies are simply links to government agencies banning the substance with no real clue as to its effectiveness. Just another case of the market criminalizing anything they can't make profits from.

Anti-bacterial effect of Silver Ions (Which are contained in Colloidal silver): http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/73503276/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

With electric currents applied (not really applicable here): http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=444706

Outside the human body (Colloidal silver): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VG6-4JKRTKJ-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=994175037&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b55c5d53657503fbba009880a0923980
and http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2g120j41r282124/

Not to mention that colloidal silver was what was used before the discovery of antibiotics. If you can't sell it, ban it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

People seem to have no trouble selling, and profiting, from colloidal silver regardless of the FDA's opinion of it. Mercury and arsenic were used before the discovery of antibiotics, but that doesn't mean that they've been banned by greedy government bureaucrats and Big Pharma. They just don't work that well, and they're toxic. In any case, this isn't a soapbox, nor a venue for you to present cherry-picked literature. MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not synthesizing a conclusion. I simply presented papers that assure silver as an antibacterial substance. Colloidal silver contains silver suspended in liquid, so one could only conclude that the silver in colloidal silver has the same antibacterial properties as silver on its own. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, after reading this article, the studies "disproving its efficacy" are 1) The FDA decision to ban it as a remedy([1]) and 2) Silver causes Aryria([2]). The latter is what I believe is the abstract, or a response to the publication, which I managed to find after a good search. It is pretty clear that this study goes on to show that Colloidal Silver may cause Argyria, not that it was ineffective at treating Lyme disease.

Further to this, the single case of a man dying from what the author believes is colloidal silver, uses one reference labeled "Argyria secondary to ingestion of homemade silver solution". There are thousands of "safe" drugs that are used as band-aids for every condition from the cold to cancer, which if they were homemade would surely cause illness or death. What strikes me is that one reference claims the man's death ([3]), while the other claims "generalized argyria," which is ONLY the pigmentation of the skin.([4]).

The lead also claims argyria as if it were poisoning, rather than a cosmetic issue.

As such, I've made some corrections per WP:NPOV - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be misunderstanding the scientific method as it applies here. As a default, you require proof that a substance is effective. You don't assume that something is useful and then demand disproof of that assumption. It makes no sense, from a scientific standpoint, to argue that there's no proof it's ineffective. Argyria is technically both a poisoning and a cosmetic condition; I have no objection to describing it as the latter. As to the death, the article is very clear that it is a single case report in which the authors attributed death to colloidal silver ingestion. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, I don't think doctors would have used it in the past and described its use, and results in medical journals if it wasn't effective. I don't think it would be considered for use for disinfecting water on space stations and in 3rd world countries if it hadn't been proven effective, at least as an antibacterial. --stmrlbs|talk 05:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Doctors have used, and described as successful, all sorts of things in the past. The fact that people thought something was a good idea in 1913 does not categorically suggest that it's a good idea today. To move away from assertions and toward reliable sources, there are several cited in the article as finding a lack of evidence of effectiveness. What experts thought about colloidal silver in 1913 is of historical interest. However, it should not be conflated with what experts today think of colloidal silver. I'm worried that we're eliding this obvious and relevant distinction, for whatever reason.

Similarly, no one has disputed that colloidal silver functions as a water disinfectant, along with chlorine and the like. I believe the article covers this usage in depth. Perhaps we could avoid conflating that with its purported properties as an oral antibiotic? Or should we assert that because chlorine disinfects drinking water, it must be an effective oral antibiotic? MastCell ^Talk 06:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that the only way people use colloidal silver today is to ingest it. That isn't true. There are a lot of topical uses - example - for eye infections - as it was used successfully in the past. And, there is research showing the effectiveness of colloidal silver used for antibacterial purposes in this article [academicjournals.org/SRE/PDF/PDF%202007/Aug/Iroha%20et%20al.pdf]. --stmrlbs|talk 08:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The article currently says.."Currently, colloidal silver is marketed for internal and external use as an alternative medical remedy, though there is no scientific evidence of its effectiveness." Actually theres plenty of scientific and historical medical evidence that it has been effectively used topically. http://robholladay99.tripod.com/cs1.htm. So perhaps it should say ".... there is no scientific evidence of its effectiveness ''in vivo". I also think on reflection that the current wording does imply there have been scientific tests conducted that prove its 'inneffectiveness'. In fact there have been no clinical tests of any kind that prove anything in vivo, so the wording should perhaps say "Currently, colloidal silver is marketed for internal and external use as an alternative medical remedy, though no scientific studies have been conducted as to its effectiveness in vivo." DHawker (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a more accurate description. --stmrlbs|talk 16:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording is taken practically verbatim from reliable sources, so I don't see a strong need to water it down based on editorial opinion. I would be fine with more clearly differentiating internal from external uses. However, the majority of marketing of colloidal silver appears to advertise it for internal use for unproven indications; several reliable sources highlight this aspect, hence it seems a reasonable focus for our article as well. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But we should present the facts as they are. Sure a source may say its ineffective, but what studies have been published on its efficacy? I'm not seeing anything that proves or disproves its ability to work. I see the FDA banning it and threatening people, I see a few cases of morons killing themselves through self-medication, but I see nothing that proves its effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Therefore, the ideal wording is "no scientific studies have been conducted as to its effectiveness," as that is the fact, plain as day, that is presented when there has been no studies conducted as to its effectiveness. Indeed, if it's so ineffective as the article currently claims, shouldn't there be a multitude of studies disproving it? No, instead there are a few governments just deciding to ban it without conducting studies first. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. But that's beside the point. I don't see the need to "improve" upon the wording contained in reliable sources. In fact, I think these repeated proposals to substitute our own "ideal wording" for that contained in the actual sources are clear violations of Wikipedia's basic content policies, including verifiability and no original research or synthesis. In order to comply with Wikipedia's conduct policies, I will refrain from speculation as to the reasons for this insistence, but it is nonetheless inappropriate. You say you want to "present the facts as they are". The facts are that every reputable body and source that has looked into colloidal silver for internal use has concluded that it's ineffective and possibly dangerous. In that light, your proposals obscure the facts, if anything. I'd be fine with soliciting outside input if you feel I'm being unreasonable. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Which reputable bodies/sources claim this? (Note that the FDA's banning is not an appropriate reliable source to deem something ineffective and dangerous. The study which the FDA used to make that recommendation would be). If you were to reference, say, this study (As opposed to NCCAM), I might be inclined to agree with the current wording. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The cited source, NCCAM, states in its lead that "colloidal silver products have been used for a variety of health purposes—although there is no scientific evidence to support their safety or effectiveness." The FDA's assessment of a substance's safety and efficacy is, of course, relevant to any serious, respectable reference work. The paper you mention is also cited further down in our article, and supports the general summary we provide. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell said "However, the majority of marketing of colloidal silver appears to advertise it for internal use for unproven indications; several reliable sources highlight this aspect, hence it seems a reasonable focus for our article as well". That seems to indicate that you think the purpose of this article should largely be to provide a counter argument to the claims of colloidal silver advertisers. That sounds like bias to me, not a good basis for a reliable 'stand alone' encyclopedic article. DHawker (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I see it as a simple application of Wikipedia policy. If most or all reliable sources discuss colloidal silver in the context of its promotion as an unproven cure-all, then Wikipedia should reflect that emphasis. It would be biased to downplay the conclusions of numerous reliable sources, and the weight of expert opinion, because we disagree with it. Again, if this seems unreasonable, the most appropriate course of action is probably to involve other experienced editors from outside this narrow realm. MastCell ^Talk 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article needs to differentiate between the different types of colloidal silver solutions. There are several types with some fairly major differences. I think the types of colloidal silver solutions and the PPM of solutions referenced by the research should be specified. And, I think the types and PPM of colloidal silver solutions that cause argyria should be specified. I think the statement "the majority of marketing of colloidal silver appears to advertise it for internal use for unproven indications" is WP:OR, because all you have to do is do a google search on colloidal silver uses, you can see for yourself that it isn't just internal use that is advertised. However, it is the internal use that gets the most attention from FDA, and the other "reliable sources" that MastCell refers to, because it is the internal use that is unproven. --stmrlbs|talk 06:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell, the reliable sources that you suggest are everywhere are in fact pretty rare. Theres the FDA and the NACCM and thats about it. Most of the other sources seem to refer back to those two which in turn refer to the same one or two lightweight, dubious, and now quite old, pub-med type articles that contain lots of theories but no proof or original research. All this snowballing and repetition creates the illusion there's a mountain of evidence proving CS is dangerous. There isn't a mountain at all. In fact theres not even a molehill of real evidence that CS is dangerous. Theres more evidence (some of it bleeding obvious) that silver is very safe. The EPA and Toxic Substances Registry have extensive research on this. Apart from Argyria, silver is totally harmless when used with any degree of common sense. (in fact if you have no common sense at all you probably still can't do anything worse than turn blue.) I defy anyone to find actual ORIGINAL proof or credible ORIGINAL research that shows colloidal silver has or could cause brain damage, kidney failure, liver failure, coma, amnesia, or any of the other ludicrous suggestions that are recycled in the so-called 'peer reviewed' medical articles. DHawker (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like this article to be based on verifiable material from reliable sources. You guys are telling me that a) we need to water down the language because we know better than the experts, and b) we need to water down the language because of a bunch of dubious websites that turn up on Google search. I don't see a point in continuing this; either I am not understanding your argument, or you guys deeply, deeply misunderstand this project's goals and policies. I suspect the latter, because you guys offer no encyclopedic sources, only your personal opinions, Google hit counts, and an apparent desire to weaken the obvious findings of reliable sources. Make a source- and policy-based argument, and I'll listen. Otherwise, I don't see this going anywhere; I'd suggest involving outside input if you think I'm being unreasonable. MastCell ^Talk 06:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you raving on about Mastcell? What dubious websites? What Google searches? What Google hit counts? What personal opinions? You are imagining things. I know you'd like this whole colloidal silver article reduced to just a link to the NCCAM but I think the readers want more. These are the facts I want made clear in the article: 1. There is medical evidence proving the effective topical use of colloidal silver. 2. There have been no in vivo scientific studies conducted into the use of colloidal silver. I don't see that a 'policy-based' argument is needed to insert such clear facts. DHawker (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Stmrbls, above, cited the results of a Google search to rebut the contents of various reliable sources. I'm open to citing medical evidence of the effectiveness of colloidal silver as a topical antibacterial; what sources do you propose to support this? MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading from Toxicities to Adverse Effects in line with most other Wiki articles about drugs and medicines. Toxicity is clearly a term that is most commonly use to mean 'poison' and is too pejorative a term to use on a product that has no proven adverse effect apart from argyria. Even the Wiki articles on the 7 most dangerous commonly used drugs in conventional medicine, with adverse effects ranging from blindness to sudden death, do not use the term 'toxicity', in fact most simply use the pretty mild words 'Side-effects' as a section heading. (You can look them up.. Lortab, Oxycontin, Endocet, Angiotesin, Zocor, Aspirin, Adderall). Even the NCCAM restricts itself to 'Side effects' as a section heading in its colloidal silver article.DHawker (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it; that's fine with me. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote from the NCCAM suggests there is no scientific evidence of the effectiveness of colloidal silver. In light of the reference from The American Society for Microbiology that statement is clearly wrong, misleading, or out of context. The NACCM is obviously refering to in-vivo research, thats all I was trying to clarify. But have it your way if you don't mind confusing the readers. The reference I have added contradicts the NACCM but its a fair addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHawker (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is proven in science, especially not by one study. Anyway, it's a bit of a strong pronouncement for just having a single source. Auntie E. 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to the single source on the other side, NCCAM? Please, if you disagree with one word, do not revert the whole damn edit! Just change the word that bothers you. In this case, changing scientific proof to scientific evidence quickly fixes your conundrum. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Some references as to uses as topical germicide and at what strength it kills bacteria:

• Chapter on how doctors used colloidal silver solutions as germicides and disinfectants in the 1920s and 1930s [5]
• The use of silver in wound management can be traced back to the 18th century, during which silver nitrate (AgNO3) was used in the treatment of ulcers.1 The antimicrobial activity of the silver ions was first identified in the 19th century, and colloidal silver was accepted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as being effective for wound management in the 1920s.2,3 However, after the introduction of penicillin in the 1940s, antibiotics became the standard treatment for bacterial infections and the use of silver diminished.
• [academicjournals.org/SRE/PDF/PDF%202007/Aug/Iroha%20et%20al.pdf Antibacterial efficacy of colloidal silver alone and in combination with other antibiotics on isolates from wound Infections]
• In its colloidal form, silver does not eliminate viruses, but is considered highly effective in destroying different types of bacteria. Silver’s disinfection mechanism acts by inactivating bacteria and mold cell enzymes that need oxygen for their metabolism; its causes their cellular disruption, although over periods that vary widely according to the water temperature. Very long periods are required at temperatures of 10 °C or less, making it difficult to determine silver’s precise germicidal power. Colloidal silver can remain in the water for a long period of time, but is not considered to have good residual power because of the slowness of its reactions in eliminating organic matter. The recommended dose for high germicidal efficacy is in the range of 25 to 75 micrograms of silver per liter (0.025 – 0.075 mg/l). WHO document on water disinfection [6]

note: (0.025-0.075 mg/l = 0.025-0.075 ppm [7] / most colloidal silver solutions produced by electrolysis is 5-10 ppm) (10 Centigrade = 50 Fahrenheit) --stmrlbs|talk 02:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Floydian. Colloidal Silver has not been banned as a medical treatment. Doctors or anyone can use it if they wish. The only thing that has been banned is making unproven 'medical claims'. I don't think such comments are appropriate in the opening section anyway. Its past history and its better explained in other sections anyway.DHawker (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell grow up. You've found just one poorly conducted test in Botswana demonstrating that some colloidal silver bought on the internet didn't work, and you want to use that to show that colloidal silver doesnt work in-vitro. And you have the nerve to call it a 'major' study. Thats ridiculous. The research we referenced is far more credible and is just two from a mountain of research proving silver is antibacterial. If you want to make an argument about the quality of internet colloidal silver do it in an appropriate section.DHawker (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll expand on this further. The Botswana Ear Clinic test is flawed as a reference for a number of reasons. Firstly its already been proven by other credible research that colloidal silver, like most forms of silver, is antibacterial IN VITRO. A negative test is therefore somewhat pointless. All it proves is that you can make anything fail if you try hard enough. Secondly, buying a single product off the internet and testing it proves nothing about other brands and types of colloidal silver. Thirdly, and most importantly... the test was done in an agar well diffusion. Colloidal silver is a liquid, the silver ions and particles must come in contact with bacteria to kill it. To immobilise it in agar is tantamount to neutralizing it. This is a mistake that has been made by other researchers. You will find however that successful tests using colloidal silver use broth or other liquid mediums that allow the silver to circulate. This Botswana test was doomed to fail from the start. The bottom line is that it simply cannot be put on equal footing with other far more credible tests that prove colloidal silver works in-vitro. (No-ones trying to claim this proves anything in-vivo)DHawker (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to your personal opinions. While I find your reasoning flawed on several levels this talk page has degenerated far enough. Your personal criticisms of the published scientific literature are neither here nor there for Wikipedia's purposes, as you must know by now - having been reminded of it dozens of times. I will solicit outside opinions since I find this discussion depressingly circular and non-policy-based at present. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that this article omits a great deal of information and misrepresents the facts. While it is true that in 1999 the FDA formally established that all colloidal silver products are unclassified drugs, this wasn't a Ban, and it would be more accurate to call it a reclassification based on cases of Argyria. The article makes no mention to that fact that prior to this there was official FDA approval for Colloidal Silver products to be sold as a Drug because the FDA was presented with evidence that it works. If it wasn't for the noted side effects, it would still have approval. But because the FDA now feels that the potential risks outweigh any gains you may not market a product with the antibiotic claims. Again, that is very different from saying it doesn't work. It should also be made clear that while their reasons was cases of Argyria, the only recorded cases involved taking extremely high doses. In one recorded case, it took a man 16 ounces, 450 ppm a day for 10 months, to contract the condition. (source: http://dermatology.cdlib.org/111/case_reports/argyria/wadhera.html ) There has never been (to my knowledge) a recorded case of Argyria among those who consume as Doctors once suggested over 50 years ago. This is an important fact to be distinguished. If you take any drug in a way that a Doctor advises against there are going to be consequences. You can read the specific FDA article here: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/081799a.txt it will give you all of their reasons for not approving it again in 1999. -- Elliander, 2:48 PM CST, 14 September 2009

Among their concerns, more interestingly, is that many products sold as colloidal silver were not true colloidal compounds at all, some of which do not even contain any silver. Two (and only two) physician comments were submitted with the claim that it had no benefit. One comment submitted it's safe benefits, but did not detail enough information for consideration. "Another comment added that most of the reported cases of argyria resulted from the use of silver nitrate, various ionic silver salts, or highly concentrated mild silver protein." which cast doubts on the sude effect concerns. Another comment submitted numerous studies in rats that "reported that no abnormal clinical or behavioral signs were observed after 12 days of treatment" thus establishing at least that short term use of even high doses could be safe. Another comment submitted to the FDA that is documented lists a partial list of "650 diseases that colloidal silver has been used against and included a number of testimonials." ... the page goes on and on, but all of this information is available on a single website, all documented by the FDA. It would be VERY easy to take this information and add the details to this article so that it would no longer be biased, all from a single credible source. -- Elliander, 3:25 PM CST, 14 September 2009

Virtually anyone can submit a comment to the FDA; it's part of the deliberative process. As many people swear by colloidal silver as a cure for what-ails-you, the FDA received many comments during its review of the subject. Individual supportive comments should probably not be cherry-picked, especially in light of the fact that the FDA seemed to find them rather unconvincing. Put another way, you seem to be suggesting that we cite a few anonymous letters to the FDA more highly than the agency's scientific analysis and synthesis of evidence on the subject, which seems to me to conflict with Wikipedia's content policies. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I only suggest you make factual reference. For example, the 1999 decision was for "New Drugs" only (the link I provided made that very clear) and they permit old drugs to continue to use the labels with claims as the production complies with pre-1999 decisions. Again, the main reason for this had nothing to do with the idea that it didn't work and everything to do with quality control. Now, I am not suggesting referencing anonymous comments, but the FDA records include well documented studies that are not anonymous. You should also make clear the nature of the assesment: It was about if it is safe or not. The question of it it works was not really an issue. It just seems that by omiting so much information you give the false impression that the FDA feels it doesn't work. At the very least you could include the fact that the decision is for new drugs only and does not apply to all products on the market. That is, if you want to reference the FDA at all. If you reference an FDA decision and omit an important detail like that it's of no use to anyone. --- Elliander 6:43 PM CST, 18 September 2009

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or just pulling my leg. The FDA final rule clearly states that colloidal silver is not generally recognized as "safe and effective", and furthermore that "adequate safety and effectiveness data have not been provided" (emphasis mine). These directly contradict your assertion. It was not just a matter of safety, but of effectiveness. I don't know what "well-documented studies" you refer to; none are indexed in PubMed, and the FDA found that "the previous studies are not adequate and well-controlled clinical studies... The studies have major methodic flaws." I don't understand; am I missing something, or are you really just assuming I haven't actually read the FDA document? MastCell ^Talk 05:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

biased

The pharmaceutical industry will not allow anything to be published that is effective, so relying on the medical society anymore is hopeless. Baxter, the producer of the flu vaccine has already been found out for having willfully sent out lethal and poisonous vaccine material, knowingly and have not retracted it. Criminal charges have been filed several times already against both them and Bayer, at one point the NGO filed criminal charges with ten different offices of the FBI, all disappeared.

There are extremely few cases of argy', skin disorder, mainly people who have made their own with huge amounts of metallic silver, and ignoring the dilution direction. saying or warning that colloidial silver is creating skin disorder is like saying that eating aspirin will make you sick because we assume you are going to eat three packets of the stuff at one go.

The cases of skin disorder were initial and by amateurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.44.195 (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, as usual. There is still no evidence that internal use of colloidal silver has any benefits, nor that it has significant damage. (The skin condition, although possibly serious, doesn't have many side effects, itself.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Better rationales

Frankly, this edit summary is a bit offensive, and the reasoning is not particularly strong either. The "tinpot test in Botswana", as DHawker charmingly refers to a journal article whose conclusions s/he disagrees with, is the only source I'm aware of that actually tested colloidal silver products as they are marketed for antibacterial effect. It was negative. It's fine to add papers from the physics and physical chemistry literature about the effect of silver ions - I have no objection to that. But they do not negate a study of the actual properties of widely available colloidal silver remedies, and the removal of this particular source unbalances the article and damages the goals of providing an accurate overview worthy of a serious reference work. I will not revert further at this point, but I would like to hear some explanation for this removal, beyond cheap shots at the study's country of origin. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to this: J. Wound Care appears to be a reputable and established journal, e.g. listed in the top 20 nursing journals by frequency of listing in a UK assessment exercise in which each academic lists their top publications. Why should it matter where its authors come from? Frankly that comment just comes off as bigoted. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My objection is not to where the test came from but to its obvious flaws and the weight Mastcell wants to give it in this article. A single study of a single product randomly bought on the internet should not be used to discredit overwhelming research that proves that scientifically prepared colloidal silver solutions have anti-microbial properties. Clearly the authors of the study neither had, nor sought, any control over the manufacture or quality of the internet product, so how can this possibly be acceptable as a 'scientific test' of any importance? That point alone makes it little better than a 'consumer report'. (Thats why I called it tinpot). Yet Mastcell wants us to believe its a 'major study' (his words) and give it priority at the start of this Wiki article. Properly prepared colloidal silver (like all silver) kills germs in test tubes. Endless references prove this. Information about the inadequacy of 'internet products' should be kept separate from comments about credible, comprehensive in-vitro lab tests of properly prepared solutions. Further. I intend to reinstate the Tiawan reference. This is clearly relevant to the comment about Silver ions killing germs.DHawker (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that I'm proposing excess weight; I have no objection to noting that the study involved a single commercial preparation of colloidal silver (in fact, I think this is its relevancy). For completeness, you may want to note that the authors also tested 2 colloidal silver solutions produced in their laboratory, with similarly negative results. I also have no objection to citing papers from the physical-chemistry literature which did find an antimicrobial effect. Your hostility toward the source is noted, but the fact that you personally dislike the study does not strip it entirely of its relevancy. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say the "Tiawan" study. MastCell ^Talk 01:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The question that begs to be asked is whether or not this study established if their internet product was indeed Colloidal silver solution, prior to testing its antimicrobial properties. The second question is whether they used the solution as is, or if they monkeyed with it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Partly my point. It sounds like part of the rationale was to accept what it said on the label. Thats reasonable for a consumer report but hardly good science. The real ppm of Colloidal silver is extremely difficult to measure and requires highly specialised and expensive equipment that virtually no manufacurers have. So label values are often extremely misleading. Most manufacturers just use a cheap water conductivity meter that has a huge error factor at this end of the scale. But look, I don't care if the reference is included in the article as long its used in context.DHawker (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to make a greater effort to respect the talk page guidelines? These pages are not a forum for editors to expound at length their personal views of the published literature. It would be more productive to focus on discussion that has at least some basis in Wikipedia policy. MastCell ^Talk 04:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you're the expert. Whats the policy on physically structuring an article to reflect your bias? I'm referring to your habit of 'bookending' any 'positive' info with your 'negative' info. As such I'm going to break the opening section back into paragraphs for each defined topic. This appears to be inline with other Wiki articles and rules of good grammar generally. It should also make it easier to edit in future. As I see it the topics are 1, The physical/chemical structure of colloidal silver. 2, The chemical effects (i.e. antimicrobial properties). 3 Consumer use (NACCM, Internet marketing, and the Botswana test of an internet product.). 3, The side effect argyria. If you have a good reason for reducing the readabily of the article I'd be happy to hear itDHawker (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two topics here, effectiveness and safety. (This is the standard way to discuss any proposed treatement). It is reasonable to put effectiveness first, then safety; it is not reasonable to artificially create subcategories like "The physical/chemical structure of colloidal silver" and then "consumer use". The coverage of effectiveness should reflect what reliable sources say on the topic: they should not begin with a special paragraph that lists only positive results from in vitro studies. I therefore reverted that change. Eubulides (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The opening Physical/Chemical subcategory already existed. I didnt 'artificially' create it at all. And I made the safety issue (i.e. argyria) even more prominent by giving it a new para. My concern is the mingling of comprehensive scientific laboratory research with the product test of a single internet purchase. The credible lab tests deserve more respect than they are getting here.DHawker (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I don't think the results of 3 credible in-vitro lab tests should be sandwiched or buried between the NACCM comment about in-vivo evidence and a single dubious test on a bottle of colloidal silver bought on the internet.

The discussion of effectiveness should start with the mainstream consensus of experts on real-life effectiveness. It should not begin with discussion of in vitro studies, which are less relevant to real-life effectiveness. I see that you just now reinstated the overemphasis on in vitro studies with the misleading edit summary "Removed weasel words like 'some' and 'an' that imply the effect was some kind of accidental side effect." The primary effect of that change was not to remove weasel words: it was to shove the favorable in vitro evidence to the front and to make it more prominent. Please don't use misleading edit summaries like that. Since this is evidently a contentious area, I suggest proposing this sort of edit on the talk page first. For now I reverted the misleadingly-summarized and disputed edit. Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside — Do "electrically generated silver ions" fit the definition of "colloidal silver"? If not (and I can't imagine why they would), then the study does not belong in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The question of electrically produced colloidal silver has been discussed in the past and it was agreed that it fit in "the broader definition of colloidal silver". This is spelt out in the opening para of the article. As probably 95% of the 'colloidal silver' that is available commercially is electrically produced it would be odd to exclude it.DHawker (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides said. "The discussion of effectiveness should start with the mainstream consensus of experts on real-life effectiveness. It should not begin with discussion of in vitro studies, which are less relevant to real-life effectiveness." I don't actually see the logic in that at all. Evidence of its most significant effects is a natural progression from its physical properties that are described in the opening para. These effects are not just a side issue or incidental, they are absolutely fundamental to the whole topic. DHawker (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The simplest and lowest-level physical effect is argyria, but the wording you installed did not start with argyria. And even if we accepted the dubious argument that in vitro antibacterial is the most physical property, followed by in vivo lack of effectiveness, followed by argyria as the least physical property, the problem would still remain that the resulting discussion would put a relatively unimportant cart (in vitro) before the more-important horse (real-life effectiveness and mainstream consensus). Eubulides (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that any particular aspect is more important than the other. You can arrange the horse and cart however you like. Put argyria first and in-vitro evidence last if you prefer. I just want is to see each point laid out logically and clearly so it can stand on its own merits, not melded into a mish mash paragraph that buries any 'inconvenient truths'. Thats the type of biased editing I've been fighting all along.DHawker (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How is there "mainstream consensus" if no in-vivo studies have been done? There would only be mainstream assumptions. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. If there is no evidence that a treatment is effective, then the scientific conclusion would be that there is no evidence that it's effective. That is, in fact, what the reliable secondary sources here have concluded. It's not complicated. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between an unknown effectiveness due to a lack of study into its effects and no effectiveness due to studies proving that it has no effects. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Clinical studies are not so good at disproving a claim of effectiveness. Witness the repetitive argument every time a new major study shows that megavitamin doses are ineffective or harmful - the true believers in the therapy will argue that the dose was wrong, or the formulation was wrong, or the patient sample was wrong, etc. If a substance lacks any evidence of effectiveness, then it is considered ineffective until proven otherwise, at least by the sorts of "conventional" and "mainstream" authorities upon which this reference work is supposed to rely. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems very misleading. It should just state things as they are... That is that no studies have been done. If it still says that this means that it is considered ineffective, then so be it... But it should establish that it is considered ineffective because it hasn't been tested upon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not consider it misleading - that's your prerogative. I'm only trying to explain why reliable sources use the wording that they do - since a great deal of argument on this talk page seems to be along the lines of "reliable source X is wrong because I said so." MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying reliable source A is wrong, but rather more along the lines of reliable source A, while essentially saying the same things as source B, C, D, E and F, is poorly worded to misrepresent the reality of the situation in their bias". Wikipedia's articles are not direct copies of their sources, it is ok if a word or two isn't the same word as those used on the sources (Especially when a look through the primary sources indicates the alternative wording is more appropriate, even if the reliable secondary source has interpreted and used other words that, semantics aside, still mean the same thing). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

2 edits for you to consider. The Brandt reference should be removed from the case of 'status elipticus'. That reference has nothing to do with that particular case. And as previously mentioned I believe the following sentence contains weasel words: "Some in vitro studies demonstrate an anti-bacterial effect of electrically generated silver ions". IMHO this existing wording sounds like the effect was just a minor and unexpected side effect. In fact it was the very focus of the experiments and the effect was totally conclusive. The wording also suggests that 'some' in-vitro studies (i.e. more than one) do NOT demonstrate the anti-bacterial effect. At best there is only one such study and the wording should reflect this. I propose simpler, unambiuous wording... i.e. "In vitro studies have demonstrated the anti-bacterial effect of silver generated ions (followed by the existing wording re the Botswana test) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not weasel-wording to state: "Some in vitro studies demonstrate an anti-bacterial effect of electrically generated silver ions.^{[citations of studies in question]}" I don't see how this violates, or even really touches upon, WP:WEASEL. It would be inaccurate to make a blanket statement that "studies support" an antibacterial effect of colloidal silver. Some studies do not; and given the moving goalposts for what actually constitutes "colloidal silver" I'm not sure the sourcing is as strong as a certain currently blocked agenda account might suggest. The "Some studies support... while others have found..." wording is a more accurate representation of the sources, in my opinion. MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that the collective weight sides with it indeed having an antibacterial effect, should it not be worded instead: "Some in vitro studies do not demonstrate the anti-bacterial effect of electrically generated silver ions." to give light that most do, but some do not?? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say "an anti-bacterial effect", rather than "the anti-bacterial effect", but otherwise that would be OK with me. I still have concerns about our definition of "colloidal silver", and its lack of clarity - particularly since we seem to be casting a wide net to pull in any positive silver-related study - but we can work on that. MastCell ^Talk 04:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the whole emphasis on in vitro in the lead sounds fishy to me. Ethanol has an antibacterial effect in vitro too, but it'd be pretty misleading for Alcoholic beverage to mention this fact in the lead. Let's just state the mainstream consensus in the lead and leave the fine print about in vitro for the body. Eubulides (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because prior to the discovery of antibiotics, doctors didn't pour bourbon on wounds, did they? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I find it funny you mentioned that... Because Ethanol is antiseptic above 50-60%, and is used at 60-65% in most hand sanitizers. This is far above the average maximum distillation of alcoholic spirits (35-42%). This is of course beyond the fact that spirits are taxed/more expensive than ethanol, contain numerous impurities that would counter the anti-septic effect, and rarely, if ever, have been historically used for the management of lacerations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, doctors did pour bourbon on wounds, in a pinch. But that was my point. Does alcohol's obvious antibacterial effect in vitro mean that it is useful as an antibacterial agent for your system when you drink it, as colloidal silver is normally taken? Eubulides (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that point though. I'm saying that colloidal silvers in-vitro use is significant in the big picture of colloidal silver (Which, though recently marketed by naturopaths as a systemic anti-bacterial, was used significantly in the past in vitro for its antibacterial effect). In fact, that use should take the forefront in the lead since it was used more significantly for that purpose. It should then go on to speak of its current use as an internal anti-bacterial, which is unsupported by studies. In the big picture of alcoholic beverages, its in-vitro anti-septic effect is not significant... Though if doctors did indeed pour bourbon on wounds, then YES! It should be in the article on alcoholic beverages. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• The antimicrobial properties of wine and beer were very significant historically. See Wine is the foremost of all medicines. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you get proteins from a metal?

I was checking out one of the intro sentences:

The broader commercial definition of "colloidal silver" includes products that contain various concentrations of ionic silver, silver colloids, ionic silver compounds or silver proteins in purified water. ^{[emphasis added]}

What in the world is a "silver protein"? Protein is, by it's very definition, an organic compound found in living cells. Where did we get a reference to "Silver Proteins"? Padillah (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Next sentence. "Colloidal silver with concentrations of 30 parts per million (ppm) or less are typically manufactured using an electrolysis process, whereas colloidal silver with higher concentrations of 50 ppm or more are usually either silver compounds such as silver chloride and silver iodide or are solutions that have been bound with a protein to disperse the particles."

It's not a silver protein per say, but rather silver bound by protein. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, is there, perhaps, a better way to phrase this? Maybe "...ionic silver compounds or bound proteins in purified water." This article is getting enough bad press as it is making claims of "silver proteins" can't help. Padillah (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I think that clarifies it a little better. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting research here

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18802883 - Silver is a topical antibacterial http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16761169 - Again http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17453933 - Silver is not toxic, argyria is not a toxicity and is cosmetic only

Put away your red sharpie! It's pubmed, peer reviewed, and recent (2006-2008). I also found a 1958 study that treated a peptic ulcer with it, It's behind the times, but I don't see any recent studies disproving its conclusions. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• PMID 18802883 and PMID 16761169 both deal with topical silver as a wound dressing, as you've noted. The first specifically cites the importance of ionic (as opposed to colloidal) silver in producing antimicrobial efficacy. The second is about silver sulfadiazine, a pharmaceutical topical antibiotic widely used for burn patients in particular. It does not deal with colloidal silver. We have articles on silver and silver sulfadiazine; this article is specifically about colloidal silver. We should probably resist the temptation to pick out any positive reference that involves some form of silver and apply it here. We should focus instead on references dealing with colloidal silver rather than silver sulfadiazine or ionic-silver/activated-silver topical dressings, which are different animals.
• PMID 17453933 is useful as a general review of silver toxicity, and might be a good citation for our section here on argyria.
• Worth noting that the Cochrane Library systematic reviews of topical silver products found 3 usable trials, none of which used "colloidal" silver. The reviewers concluded: "There is not enough evidence to recommend the use of silver-containing dressings or topical agents for treating infected or contaminated chronic wounds." ([8], [9]) In any case, the point is that the literature on wound healing does not deal with colloidal silver, and thus is a bit off-topic for this particular article. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong... But what about colloidal silver makes it not have the same effects as plain ol' AG? Is it not just silver suspended in water? My bottle of CS just says Medical ingredients: Silver - 10ppm. Non-medical ingredients: Ultra-pure water. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably not qualified to say anything in-depth, but my understanding is that a true colloid would be a suspension in elemental, rather than ionic, form. The antimicrobial effect of silver is mediated by the silver ion, Ag⁺. That said, the lead of this article indicates that there is a "broader" marketing definition of colloidal silver which includes mixtures with low concentrations of silver ion. I'm not able to find much in the way of good sources on this distinction (or lack of a distinction), so if you see any, let me know - or maybe someone more knowledgeable about inorganic chemistry can help out. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I thinkthe "source" for that distinction is the existence of products labeled "Colloidal Silver" that have ionic silver in them. It's kind of the same situation with Wasabi, very little is true Wasabi root, most of it is pickled horseradish, so now "Wasabi" is forms of pickled horseradish. Padillah (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

question about MastCell's change

[10] - edit summary: "Current applications: not a good source here, per discussion on talk page; other ref is fine". Where was this discussed? I can't find the discussion. --stmrlbs|talk 15:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right; it was discussed (briefly) on the AN/I thread about DHawker, not here. I must be getting old. I'll clarify my concern: Scientific Research and Essay is not indexed by MEDLINE, or any other major scientific index that I can tell, and the content appears to be primarily in the field of botany. There are a million non-indexed journals out there; I'm not sure that this reaches the level of warranting citation here. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You also forgot to mention this thread you posted on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard: [11]. I thought the Wikipedia etiquette was to notify editors when you post about them. However, since you posted on this noticeboard, and based on "current applications" being alternative, I have added this article to the Alternative medicine category. I am sure you will have no problem with that.

I also wish to point out this part of Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Parity_of_sources: "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.". This reference meets or exceeds that criteria since even though this particular journal is not indexed by a major scientific index, it is research by pubmed published researchers: [12] [Author]. Perhaps this should not be in "current applications" section, as I don't know if it is being used in Nigeria, but it certainly should be included as a reliable source for the effects of colloidal silver. --stmrlbs|talk 17:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget. On 2 September I wrote: "I will solicit outside opinions since I find this discussion depressingly circular and non-policy-based at present." Immediately thereafter I requested outside input at WP:FTN, just as I indicated I would. It is unfortunate but typical that people are willing to expend hundreds of kb of rhetoric on this page but unwilling to take the first step in dispute resolution - the solicitation of outside opinion. I urged those editors who constantly complain about the bias in this article to take such a step; when they repeatedly failed, I did - and I notified everyone here, on this talk page. I don't have a problem with adding the article to Category:Alternative medicine; I think that's a good idea.

You are abusing WP:PARITY. If you wish to use Scientific Research and Essay to represent "the views of adherents" to a fringe theory, then I can accept it as a source in that context, I guess. But then it needs to be characterized honestly, as representing the views of colloidal-silver advocates. Instead, the article is being cited to source a claim of medical fact - that usage is well outside both the letter and the spirit of WP:PARITY.

In general, I think a) this is a poor-quality, unencyclopedic source, and b) we have marginally better sources which make virtually the same point. That renders this source both inappropriate and superfluous. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, I have no problem with 3rd party opinions. Neutral uninvolved 3rd party opinions. It doesn't sound like that is the input you got, based on the response- but then your stated question wasn't really neutral, was it? But even when people get 3rd party opinions from uninvolved experienced Wikipedians, I've gotten the impression with my past experience on other articles that it is also a wasted effort if the regular editors on an article decide they don't like the 3rd opinion [13]. I can't speak for the other editors, but I would be open to someone who has not already made their decision about all of alternative medicine taking a look at this article, and giving their opinion as to what is allowed based on Wikipedia policy.

As for the research in question, it used a product from the marketplace, and states the company that it got it from, Formor, and the ppm used. What product did the Bostwana Ear clinic test use? --stmrlbs|talk 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had a frustrating experience at Stephen Barrett. I find the atmosphere around those articles unpleasant enough that I long ago stopped editing there, so I sympathize. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in your criticism of the way in which I solicited outside opinions. No one else bothered to take this basic step in dispute resolution, despite entreaties to do so. WP:FTN is a legitimate part of the content process, albeit unpopular in some quarters, and I continue to feel that it was an appropriate venue to solicit opinions on the questions at issue here. To stay with the matter at hand, Scientific Research and Essay is both a relatively poor-quality source and superfluous here, and I think the WP:PARITY argument you're making is inapposite. MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What product did the Bostwana Ear clinic research test? I don't have access to the full article, and the abstract was rather sparse in details. thanks. stmrlbs|talk 03:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This hasn't been answered, and this flawed test should be removed as it has undue weight.

"Prior to 1938, colloidal silver was used as a germicide and disinfectant.[8] Physicians used it as an eyedrop for ophthalmic problems,[9] for various infections,[10][11] and sometimes internally for diseases such as tropical sprue, epilepsy, gonorrhea, and the common cold.[1][7][12]"

I haven't read every source, but I can safely assume that each one of those has some mention that it is a topical antibacterial. That is seven sources, plus the three [2][3][4] that source it in the lead. I think 10 sources is more than enough to justify wording beyond "some studies", as it is clear that the Botswana test was a one-off. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)