Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Expert Template

Do we still need the "expert needed" template on this article? The content material is comprehensive, and heavily referenced to a large range of reliable sources. This subject is not particularly specialised, and the reliable sources are very consistent. Should the template be removed? Wdford (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing it. I think the current article has been improved, and we're not likely to get a lot more out of the template (against which it's kind of unsightly). MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it, but if anyone strongly opposes then throw her back. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this removal. There are only experts represented from the opposing view to silver. Is this a propaganda website or an information website? Do the research on the citations in this article and you will see an extreme bias. Brionbee (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No mention of silver resistant bacteria?

Why is there no mention of silver resistant bacteria? A lot of people are abusing silver antibiotics in the form of colloidal silver without realizing it's causing resistant strains to evolve. Also, what's the consequence of killing off your gut flora with silver? Qwasty (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I need a source but after clearing the colon (like clearcutting a forest) you get a less diverse and likely the most resistant and ambitious strains left from the bacterial genocide. If you have the time and you seem to have the inclination be WP:Bold and find a WP:Reliable Source and add the section. Then likely we head to consensus building. Alatari (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver will kill intestinal flora. This is why it is recommended to hold it under your tongue for 60 second to allow the mucous membrane to absorb it.

And there is no such thing as a silver resistant bacteria. The "super bacteria" we hear about mutating are never stronger. They are always, 100 percent of the time, weaker. There is never new information added in a mutation. They just mutate in such a way that they lose their appendages. This in effect negates the way our current antibiotics work on a microscopic level to destroy them. Calling the new "super bacteria" super is like calling people without hands super because they can't be handcuffed and taken to jail. They aren't stronger, they just have a way of confounding our methods of capturing them. The same goes for "super bugs". This is why I am amazed at the bias of this article seemingly undermining by media style wording any and all benefits of silver for antimicrobial application.Brionbee (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaving this here

At work and don't have time to incorporate this right now, but here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1321363/Silver-bullet-finally-beat-common-cold.html

Cmiych (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 3rd party Studies done by Analytical Resource Laboratory, L.L.C. at 380 N 880 W, Lindon, Utah 84042 Phone: 801-368-8734 Fax: 801-492-9540 Email: info@analyticalresource.com show silver’s effectiveness against: Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 (ID 1011 5/19/2006), Escherichi coli ATCC 8739 (ID 1012 5/19/2006), and H. Pylori ATCC 43504 (ID 1016 5/19/2006)

This refutes this articles claims on the absence of clinical studies proving silver’s antimicrobial properties. Please allow these claims to be removed. Thank you. Brionbee (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Would need a reference. And we use review articles per WP MEDMOS --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Redundant

This is one of the most redundant articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I understand that certain issues might naturally come up various times under several headings, but surely there's something we can do about this. How many times do we have to hear that there is no evidence for its effectiveness for any purpose (let alone as an antibiotic)? Why don't we put it all in one spot and have the million redundant sources piled on that, instead of spread throughout the article, over and over again? Anyway, just a thought. I think it mentions a few other things more often than necessary, too (such as how it can cause the condition that causes the skin to turn blue). It's nice having so many sources identifying the issue, but it would be cool if they were a little less spread out. 24.10.211.15 (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical section

There's no citations given in the latter paragraphs, and they come off as quite biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.153.116 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This article seems only here to disprove any favorable aspects of using silver to fight illness. Unfortunately, it is written representing a seemingly biased view. Some clinicals sited, when researched, leave questions about the forthrightness of the editor. Some studies sited are actually inconclusive at best. There seems to be another side to this argument that isn't being represented at all. This is very disappointing.Brionbee (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you feel something is missed please provide references to review articles publishing in peer reviewed journals. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I didn't put the merge template on this article, but it does look like there is a lot of overlap with the article at Antimicrobial Properties of Silver. I would be in favour of a merge. Wdford (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be talked about that Calloidal Silver TURNS YOUR SKIN BLUE

https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod%3D5&q=colloidal%20silver&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=r_S1T7qQBKahiQK858TkBg&biw=1280&bih=685&sei=wPS1T-_-Fa3YiQKC0LGsBw

notice "only 'calloidal silver' was searched for"

There is a woman in my town whom this happened to, and it DOES NOT GO AWAY (she had it for like 4-5 years and had to get LASER SURGERY to get her skin to be pink again. I know that doesn't count as a source, but this article needs to mention that. 69.237.118.182 (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This was covered already in the linked term argyria, but Wdford has spelt it out well. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yobol / Intro Paragraph

Hi Yobol,

I added the USFDA qualification because the reference you added was, specifically, from the FDA. Widely held medical opinions do need citations, because otherwise anybody could add anything and claim it is a widely held medical opinion!

Introducing the article with this anti-colloidal-silver sentence may give casual readers an immediate bias against or fear of aqueous suspensions of silver. It's true these have been heavily overhyped, but the article states they are at least effective as an antibiotic, and they may be the most readily available antibiotic for some. Not everyone has access to pharmaceuticals.

The wording and placement of "not been shown to be safe or effective" implies that nothing is safe or effective unless lots of formal research has supported this, which is simply false, and subtly teaches casual readers to think that way. People daily ingest dies, sweeteners, and thickeners in their foods that have had no safety research. What is your objection to more precise wording here? Let people form their opinions as they read the rest of the article, which, although poorly, addresses both usefulness and hype. Skiffree (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The wording is precise as is. There is no evidence that colloidal silver is effective or safe, and that is according to multiple sources (as documented in the colloidal silver section). The sentences are written as such that I have no worries or indication that people will confuse colloidal silver with any other uses. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Quackery

Allowing this sort of quackery here on Wikipedia is dangerous. Someone should edit this article to include the following information: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/colloidal-silver/AN01682

and

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.177.75 (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Silver Sol

Supposedly this is a new AND PATENTED variant of colloidal silver. I propose either create a new article about it or a section here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.17.24 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the article adding info on the most promising colloidal silver preparation. Someone please edit the rest of the article and remove all contradicting material, such as: "No clinical studies in humans demonstrate effectiveness, and a few report toxicity.[15]" "..it is illegal in the U.S. and Australia for marketers to make claims of medical effectiveness for colloidal silver."

Obviously there is effectiveness otherwise FDA wouldn't approve it and obviously marketers can and should make claims for it's medical effectiveness since it's FDA approved.

And, on a side note, every mention of argyria should be moved to side-effects and not be scattered throught out the article. It will probably helpful to mention that argyria is a very rare side-effect and it comes with a prolonged use (over years), of big doses of mostly home-made silver solutions containing big silver particles. Reading the article in its current form gives impression that anyone can get argyria from using any silver preparation even short-term and even at correct doses and that it is a widespread side effect. Such impression is erroneous and thus shall be corrected.

Ryanspir (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Removed commercial promotion which was sourced to a company website, patent applications and EPA papers. Wikipedia is not here to promote a product. Vsmith (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a promotion. Similar to the entries of prozac or cialis, they do list the name of the manufactorer, and so did I list the of the manufactorer of this medicine. I did link it to their website, because they do not have an article on wikipedia for their company. A quote from WP:MEDRS - "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." Please see "or" before the word medical, which means position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies is sufficient. The link to FDA approval letter for ASAP silver sol gel is the position statetemnt of FDA, which is a recognized expert body. That letter says that FDA recognizes it as an official drug and allows it's sell in the country and use/prescription.

(Additional informative supporting links: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/146009.php - American Biotech Labs(R) Obtains FDA Approval For New Wound Care Gel Product. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-biotech-labsr-obtains-fda-approval-for-new-wound-care-gel-product-61808032.html - American Biotech Labs(R) Obtains FDA Approval for New Wound Care Gel Product)

And so I'm asking Vsmith to put back my edit. Ryanspir (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Additional information further showing that this variant of colloidal silver is offically approved by the FDA for the external use (for those who are sceptical about cs). Please pay attention that both external and internal drugs have the right to be included in wikipedia.

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/510kClearances/ucm193321.htm - This is a database of FDA clearances. Kindly seach entry: DEVICE: ASAP ANTIMICROBIAL SILVER WOUND DRESSING GEL.

www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/K082333.pdf Quote: "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce.." Ryanspir (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Nope, I'm not going to put back your edit. The twice removed content was not properly sourced and was a violation of WP:Undue weight for this article. Perhaps you should propose a new edit which is supported by WP:reliable sources and in compliance with WP:undue wt ... and we will consider it. Consider that this general article is not the place to promote any specific commercial product. Vsmith (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Silver Sol is not a colloidal silver preparation, its a wound dressing intended for external use. The efficacy of silver in wound dressings is widely known, and has been thoroughly discussed in the article already, in the appropriate section. No further action is needed. However I agree that the "adverse effects" could be cleaned up a bit, and perhaps some repetition removed. Maybe you might want to start with that? Wdford (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wp:medrs

Could vsmith please explain why he uses general rs and not medrs which was specifically designed to be used for medicines? Ryanspir (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir

WP:medrs is a subset of WP:RS specific for medical related articles. As I don't edit medical related articles to add new content, I seldom refer to it. What is the problem? Vsmith (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously folks, this SilverSol stuff is not colloidal silver, its a gel intended for external wound treatment, and such things are already well covered in the article. Nowhere in any of the references provided did I see any mention of colloidal silver. There is nothing left to argue about here. Wdford (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wp:medrs 2

vsmith, thats exactly what i'm saying. Medrs is a specific subset of rs for medical articles. Good that both of us agree on it. So do you mean on this medical page we won't use medrs because you rarely use it? Kindly enlighten the editors of this page. Ryanspir (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

No. Vsmith (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use complete sentences. Do you mean, no, we will use medrs for this medical article for medrs was designed for medical articles; or no, we won't use it, because i rarely use it. According to medrs fda is an ideal source. Ryanspir (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

silver sol and cs

dear folks, according to http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7135195&OS=7135195&RS=7135195 it is cs. Although its a new innovative variant of cs with new properties. For the purpose of applying it on wounds they have embodied it in a gel. Ryanspir (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

See WP:PATENTS. Vsmith (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wp:patent

i'm indeed mentioning the patent not as a source of medical claims. I use it as a prove that american biotech labs deems silver sol to be an innovative variant of cs with new properties. To give an example, lets say i have invented a bicycle with three wheels in a row, which is much better than normal bicycle. So i can call it three wheeled bicycle or tricycle. Yet independent from the name or names i'll decide to use it is still going to be a bicycle with three wheels in essence. Please also see that i did not mention any of the medical claims listed in the patent while writing the section you have removed. Ryanspir (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir

Antibiotics in the lead

Could we change "due to the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics" in the lead, to due to the development of modern antibiotics as it is written in historically section? Its widely known that virtually all of them have adverse side effects, so i think we shall not use the word safe. Also the article is not about them, thats why i like the sentence the way its written in the historically section. I think we don't need to call them safe or harmful. There is a big number of them with different seriousness and prevalence of side-effects. Same goes about being efficient. Some fail to clear the bacterial infections due to bugs being resistant, biofilms, and other reasons. Ryanspir (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir

time to implement

i'll wait one to three more days. If no one will object, i'll add back the deleted section and slightly edit the lead regarding traditional antibiotics to make it neutral. Vsmith stopped replying and yobol doesn't have a talk page and didn't reply in the article's talk page either. Ryanspir (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir

If you are to reinstate that section, you will need sources that show that these preparations (ASAP-AGX-32 & ASAP Wound Dressing Gel) are sufficiently notable, considering that uses as a surface disinfectant (which the EPA have approved ASAP-ACX-32 for) and in wound dressing (which the FDA have approved the gel for) are already mentioned in the lead section, there is nothing to say in the information that you have presented that the size of the silver particles has any impact on this - it's just substances containing silver being approved for use in applications where silver containing preparations have been used in the past, so why should they be included? The FDA approval for the gel even says "the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976". Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What is important is that fda approved it thus wp:medrs being followed. Surface disinfectant being mentioned because it embodies the same technology used in the gel and it is also epa approved to be used as such. Both are notable because they introduce a novel approved technogy by the respective medical experts national authorities. It is also notable because for the first time fda approves cs preparation and thus negates previous determinations which considered all cs preparation not effective. And finally, this section is not about products, but rather regarding a novel silver technology which i think should be presented on the medical silver usage page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided do not state that they have been approved for their 'novel technology' - you need a source that states that clearly if you want to include this in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

About the size of the silver particles. I didn't read this article myself, but it's listed as a reference in the Russian article about cs on wikipedia. According to this study, the smaller the size of the silver particles the more profound its antimicrobial effect. Khaydarov R.A, Khaydarov R.R., Estrin Y., Cho S., Scheper T, and Endres C, «Silver nanoparticles: Environmental and human health impacts», Nanomaterials: Risk and Benefits, Series: NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security, 2009, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 287—299 ISSN 1874-6519 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9491-0 Ryanspir (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

size

Its fda which has designated for cs a special segment of silver use and its considered as a separate segment of silver use by the traditional medicine. Fda actually previously maintained not that cs is not effective, but rather there is no proven evidence that its effective.Ryanspir (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

I'm also wondering why did you bring notability into the discussion as a requirement for the technology to be mentioned. Even the fact that this technology allows silver to be used for disinfection of surfaces already warrants a mention, for the article has no mention of such approved use. And we cannot just mention that silver is approved for surface disinfection for its only this specific technology which is being approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 20:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

vsmith wp:rs

In additional, after i reviewed wp:rs, after you have requested wp:medrs not to be used, i see that fda is an ideal source there too, kindly refer to the section called medical claims. So i don't really understand why do you insist on using wp:rs for they are the same. :-) Ryanspir (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

approved novel technology

I didn't state in the section that its approved by fda as a novel technology. However, its indeed a novel technology, us patent determins that. For the patent is issued only if no previous art exists. Therefore the facts shall be introduced in this precise way. Ryanspir (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Silver sol section

Any more objections please? I'll wait more one to three days. If no further objections I'll add the section. Ryanspir (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir

How many objections do you need? You already have mine and at least two others. You have yet to answer the substantive points raised, which are that there are no sources (reliable ones anyway) that say that there is anything novel about the use of Silver sol preparations in disinfectant roles as opposed to other silver based preparations that have been in use for decades. To mention Silver sol on the basis of the sources provided would be undue, to have a whole section would be ridiculous. Mikenorton (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

objections

thank you for calling my edit ridiculous. Kindly refrain from insulting and assume a good faith. The objections of two other editors were already addressed. At this moment of time its only you who is objecting and i welcome that. However, i have addressed your objections as well and since you didn't reply i seemingly wrongly assumed that you were satisfied. As you are not, please reply under each of my explanation regarding your objections, for what you have written in your last message was already addressed by me and its a repetition of your previous objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You responded to them but didn't answer them. Also please sign your posts and keep all the discussion in a single section - it's really difficult to follow when you keep adding new sections. Mikenorton (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Folks, the world already defines "colloidal silver" as a suspension of micro-particles in a liquid, designed to be swallowed in the hopes of some internal medicinal benefit. The SilverSol product is a gel containing micro-particles which is clearly intended to be used as an external wound remedy. Although we can see that the patent blurb uses the term "colloidal silver" here, it is quite obvious that they are not talking about "colloidal silver" in the way it is already defined by everyone else. We cannot use a poorly-worded patent blurb as "evidence" that the FDA has finally determined "colloidal silver" to be efficacious. The article already competently describes all aspects of the current situation, so please let's stop the wrangling now and move on. Wdford (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

To Mikenorton: Could you please specify what exactly in my response didn't constitute an answer? You have raised following points:

1. "If you are to reinstate that section, you will need sources that show that these preparations (ASAP-AGX-32 & ASAP Wound Dressing Gel) are sufficiently notable, considering that uses as a surface disinfectant (which the EPA have approved ASAP-ACX-32 for) and in wound dressing (which the FDA have approved the gel for) are already mentioned in the lead section"

- There is no mention in the lead section that there is a silver containing surface disinfectant approved to be used in in patient and operating rooms in hospitals for example.

- There is no variant of colloidal silver which was previously approved for any of these uses.

- There is no variant of colloidal silver which was previously approved for external application.

2. "The sources provided do not state that they have been approved for their 'novel technology' - you need a source that states that clearly if you want to include this in the article."

- FDA doesn't use adjectives as "novel" in their approvals. It simply approves the medicines for indications. It's the patent which can be used as a prove that no previous art existed and thus the technology is novel. Then, if the patent would be issued in 1970 for example, perhaps we wouldn't say it's a novel technology. But if a patent was issued recently, we may say it's a novel technology.

- Also this is the first colloidal silver variant approved by FDA for anything. That is another reason why we may call this technology a novel. (meaning a novel variant of colloidal silver which proven to be effective to the extent that fda required it to be for an approval).

Kindly reply on the talk page of the article if you have further objections.

Please be precise why you oppose the section to be included and refer to the wiki policies along with citations, so that I'll know exactly what do you mean. I'll wait one - three days, if you will not reply, I'll consider you have no further objections. Ryanspir (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

This doesn't answer the objection that I raised. To link together these separate pieces of information would amount to synthesis, you need a source that states that the application of colloidal silver in these preparations is notably different from other silver-bearing preparations that have long been known to have biocidal effects. Where in the sources does it say that these are the first colloidal silver preparations ever approved for use in this way? The link that you provided that discusses an increase in effectiveness of preparations containing very fine silver particles could usefully be added to the appropriate section of the article. Regarding surface disinfectant, see the section 'Disinfectant', which states "Liquid sprays containing nano-silver are effective as a hard-surface disinfectant", supported by two sources, so nothing to add there. I see that Wdford added that - thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have read wp:syn, please allow me some time to think about it. However, please read my comment to wdford who has edited the article using the references I have submitted. He has provided misinformation instead of information and didn't mention important points, such as it's been approved for use in hospital and residential areas, as it's mentioned in the reference. Of course if the reference would simply state that it was approved for disinfection of hard surface, I wouldn't object, yet it's not the case. Perhaps you may edit his edits as he still didn't reply.

Then again, instead of mentioning this technology in different sections, I think it's a good idea of concentrating all information about this technology into one section. What do you think about it?

I'm not sure about calling this technology novel. We may call it seemingly novel, apparently novel, presumably novel or not to mention novel at all. We may call it innovative. Referring to wikipedia definition of innovation: "Innovation is the development of new customers value through solutions that meet new needs, inarticulate needs, or old customer and market needs in new ways. This is accomplished through different or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself. Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Lat. innovare: "to change") rather than doing the same thing better." Therefore we might say they have invented SilverSol hydrosol or they have innovated colloidal silver.

Btw now I understand why wp:syn doesn't apply here. By using the patent as a reference and thus saying a "novel technology" we don't arrive to conclusion C. It's merely slightly modifying the meaning without reaching to any new conclusions. As such, we don't say that FDA has approved it because it's a novel technology. So it seems wp:syn is not applicable here for we are reaching no any new conclusions. Also I'm wondering why are you keeping with referring to new policies every time you reply? I thought you will provide citations from wp:undueweight or other policies you have mentioned before and to which I have replied. Also the fact that they have got a patent for their technology allows us to use adjectives as unique and novel/innovative, otherwise what the patent is good for?sRyanspir (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

To Wdford: Search in google for "colloidal silver spray" for it generates 903,000 hits. There are many companies who are selling it for external application. The definition of SilverSol technology as a colloidal silver should be viewed independent from how it's being used, ie: internal, external and surfaces disinfectant. This link which refer to this technology as a colloidal silver: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7039/silver_database_fauss_sept2_final.pdf - Please search the page for "asap" and see it's classification: colloidal. Furthermore the patent isn't poorly worded, otherwise it wouldn't be approved. Please pay again attention, the patent cannot be used as RS for the medical claims and as such I do not use it for this purpose. The patent can be used however as RS for a prove that a certain technology is a novel one. As we know usually when a patent is being issued there is an extensive search which ensures that no previous art exists.

To everyone: Additional reading (not intended for referencing): http://www.heliamedical.com/SNP-G_Safety.html and:

Veterans Hospital Purchase Contract Signed

American Biotech Labs has just been issued a purchase contract on the Silver Biotics supplement product (10/04) by the U.S. Veterans Administration (VA). The Silver Biotics supplement product is one of very few supplements ever approved to be purchased and used in Veterans Hospital systems. The VA purchase contract is in effect until 09/30/2009. Contract number V797P-5762X. FSC Group 65, Part 1, Section B, Pharmaceuticals, Special Item Number (SIN):622 Item #10. Full VA approved purchase documentation is available upon request. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=63d4d86aead22de1ec7ff250e1b5498b (I didn't verify this info yet, but seems good so far). Ryanspir (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

hospital surface disinfectant

Its written in the article that silver can be used for surface disinfection, however there is no mention that there is a silver preparation which is approved for disinfection of hard surfaces in patient and operating rooms in hospitals. Shall we add this mention? Kindly refer to epa approval of asap-agx-32. Please see that water disinfection for example in the article is expanded to include the details and specifics. Ryanspir (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Hi there - please could you provide a source for these extra facts? Wdford (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/073499-00002-20030423.pdf - Kindly refer to the last letter, original approval in 2003. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/073499-00002-20091010.pdf - It's the updated approval in 2009.

Supplemental links in plain language: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/American+Biotech+Labs+Receive+EPA+Approval+as+Hospital+Disinfectant.-a0131721311

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-155467131/american-biotech-labs-receives.html Ryanspir (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Thanks. Nobody disagrees about using silver as an external disinfectant, and I have added a few extra lines with the above sources as references to make it all abundantly clear. I have also clarified that the article discusses "colloidal silver" in the context of an ingested "medication", and that colloids used for external wounds or surfaces are covered in different sections. However, re the ingestion of colloidal silver, the Helia Medical page at [1] is the page of a private commercial organization that provides medications for ANIMALS, and is thus hardly WP:RS. Those many supporting papers they quote are all authored by combinations of the same small group of authors. I am therefore very reluctant to use it as a source to contradict heavyweights like the FDA and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Perhaps if a few WP:RS sources could be found which convey the same message? Wdford (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit amused of how you manage to misrepresent the facts. The link to Helia was provided as "additional reading", obviously I didn't intended it to be used for referencing.

Then not necessarily liquid sprays, because you can mob for example. Then again, not all nano-silver was approved for hard surfaces disinfection, but only the specific agent which is mentioned in the EPA approval. Then again, if it would be a study, we would say "found to be effective", but since it was approved, we have either to say "found to be effective and approved" or "was approved". Then, it would probably be good to say, that it's the first colloidal silver variant which was approved by EPA for such purposes. And, we should mention that it was approved to be used in a hospital as well as residential areas. Please be precise in your future edit, for it's encyclopedia. Ryanspir (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

History timeline for colloidal silver

Here is a wonderful history timeline for colloidal silver (2850 BC - 2003 AD) : History to colloidal silver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.198.173.227 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's seems to be translated by a computer from german language? Ryanspir (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

This is not something that we can rely on, coming as it does from a vendor of colloidal silver, anything but a reliable source. Mikenorton (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we cannot use it here. Ryanspir (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

FDA "Approval"

This sentence:

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of a range of different silver-impregnated wound dressings.[34]

should be either deleted or rephrased and a reference included. Most externally applied wound dressings are classified as medical devices, not drugs and are generally not approved, but rather "cleared" via the 510(k) process. Incidentally, the silver wound dressing gel referred to above was not "approved" by the FDA but cleared via the 510(k) process whereby the dressing was shown to be substantially equivalent to compounds that were already on the market. In addition, simply putting up the FDA drug site as a reference is not sufficient, especially when "silver" is the search term it turns up a single compound with different trade names.Desoto10 (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. The meaning of being cleared with 510(k) process by FDA means that you can market the respective product for the listed indications in the US. Cleared for sale means approved. You are wrong second time when you are referring to "the compounds that were already on the market." Not all silver compounds are the same and cannot be treated as such. This is the first colloidal silver which was cleared by fda and approved to be used for the respective indications. I have provided elsewhere on the talk page two links, one to a patent and one to a study in which it's written that this gel contains a variant of a colloidal silver. And I'll provide a third link: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228968107_Effect_of_Prophylactic_Treatment_with_ASAP-AGX-32_and_ASAP_Solutions_on_an_Avian_Influenza_A_(H5N1)_Virus_Infection_in_Mice - "..contained a colloidal silver at a concentration of 10 ppm, and the ASAPAGX-32 contained the same colloidal silver at a concentration of 32 ppm." Ryanspir (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

However, the FDA clearance does treat them as such, to repeat my quote from the FDA in a previous section of this page "the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976". Mikenorton (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Treats them as what? Sorry I'm missing your point when you are saying "as such". This is the standard FDA approval letter. If you have any other information about 510(k) please provide a reference. What you are hinting is that when FDA issues 510(k) the meaning is not of a formal approval, but something else which you cannot define. So, if it's not a formal approval as I say, kindly say what it is and backup with a reliable reference. (From my background reading, this company waited 6 years for this approval. It wasn't something that was given overnight. So I guess it is the formal approval and you are confused by the choice of words in the letter itself.)

If you will refer to http://www.covalon.com/pages/surgiclear-antimicrobial-clear and http://www.covalon.com/press-release/30/covalon-announces-fda-clearance-for-surgiclear-antimicrobial-silicone-wound-dressing. On the fda site it's http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf12/K121819.pdf - again the same 510(k). By the way, if you think we may include mention of this as well, for they use silver. However they didn't reply to my inquiry as of what type of silver do they use. Ryanspir (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

I was just quoting directly from your comment "Not all silver compounds are the same and cannot be treated as such". There is nothing to suggest that the FDA (or anybody else) are treating these preparations as anything other than 'things that contain silver as an active antimicrobial agent'. Mikenorton (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to use the correct regulatory terminology. SilverSol was cleared by the FDA via the 510(k) process. Thus, according to the FDA, the product is cleared for marketing and sales within the US. It is not "approved" by the FDA and if the term appears in any marketing materials, such as advertisements, website, brochures, etc., and someone complains to the FDA, they will issue a warning letter followed by more dramatic action. I am somewhat confused as to why this article is structured as it is. I would simply describe the use of silver-ontaining external dressings as a widely accepted approach to burns and other wounds and then put in a paragraph with the alternative medicine uses, including the warning by the FDA that any OTC products that contain silver and are to be taken orally are prohibited and, therefore, illegal in the US.Desoto10 (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To Mikenorton. I agree with you as in regards to FDA. I disagree with you in regards as "anybody else". This discussion is about "cleared" vs "approved" however. There is no connection as how anyone treats this preparation and "cleared" or "approved" discussion.

To Desoto10. Any medicine which is cleared by FDA is in fact being approved for sale. What is FDA clearance means? It means that this medicine (they call it formally "device") is approved for sale in the US and that the manufacturer can claim that it treats the conditions which are listed in the approval letter. Should we follow the formal language of FDA? I introduce these links as an evidence: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-biotech-labsr-obtains-fda-approval-for-new-wound-care-gel-product-61808032.html, http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=32900, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/146009.php. I believe they are reliable sources. Any objects please?

FDA CLEARS devices for the sale and use in their APPROVAL letter. Kindly refer AGAIN to the submitted NEWS links.Ryanspir (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Additional of a section

Mikenorton: I'll wait your further objections or explanations for another one to three days. WP:SYN cannot be applied here, because when I write that this variation of colloidal silver is novel and use a patent as a reference and then I say that it's approved by FDA, it's still A+B. There is no conclusion C. (It could have been a conclusion C, if I would say that FDA approved it as "a novel variant of cs", however I do not say that.)

SilverSol

American Biotech Labs[69], the producer of colloidal silver has secured US. Patent 7,135,195: Treatment of humans with colloidal silver composition.[70] As well as secured two additional US Patents 6,743,348 [71]and 6,214,299.[72] EPA approval for their ASAP-AGX-32 product was granted in 2003 and currently is being indicated for disinfecting of hard surfaces in hospitals, including emergency rooms and residential areas. FDA approval for the external use of ASAP Wound Dressing Gel was secured in 2009[74]. Silver Sol is superfine silver particles dispersed in deionized water. The term “Sol” is a chemical designation of a pure mineral, such as metallic silver, permanently suspended in water where the mineral’s charge is transferred to the entire body of water. ^ http://www.americanbiotechlabs.com/ ^ US Patent 7,135,195 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7135195&OS=7135195&RS=7135195 ^ US Patents 6,743,348 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=18&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6743348&OS=6743348&RS=6743348 ^ US Patent 6,214,299 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6214299&OS=6214299&RS=6214299 ^ http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:102:0::NO::P102_REG_NUM:73499-2 ^ http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/K082333.pdf

This is the beta version of the section, I'll still edit it. Please let me know what should be changed or updated. But please, only sensible objections. Not about "approved != cleared", FDA isn't a reliable source in wp:medrs, the most interesting one that wp:rs isn't wp:medrs, or the latest objection wp:syn where A+B=C, but there is no C. Kindly do not "misrefer" to WP if you are not absolutely sure. Ryanspir (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

That's still synthesis - you can't just say that "it seems to factually invalidate", you have to find a source that says that. As I said before to mention in would be undue and to have a whole section would be completely excessive. Mikenorton (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree on this point. (It is OR and not SYN however, because that sentence was without a reference.) Removed "The FDA clearance seems to factually invalidate prior determinations that colloidal silver isn't a curative agent." But then, what is your proposition, we have FDA letter of 1999 if I'm not mistaken on this article which says that cs is not recognized and we have FDA clearance for cs in 2009. So what should we say, otherwise readers will be puzzled.

About WP:undue, could you please provide a citation that you are referring to? Because I cannot reply without precise understanding of what do you exactly mean.Ryanspir (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

The link is Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight, as provided by Vsmith in answer to an earlier comment of yours. Mikenorton (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific sentence there that shows your point of view that the section of silversol shouldn't be on the silver use page please? Ryanspir (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

To clarify, and it's the view of several others here, there is nothing specifically notable about Silversol based on the sources provided, so to mention it at all would be to give it undue weight in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about Silversol. It is one of several preparations that are cleared for use as wound dressings. If there are references that claim that Silversol is notable then let us see them. Having a patent is not relevant to this discussion. The most recent Cochrane Review claims that there is insufficient quality clinical evidence to support the use of silver-containing wound dressings (Vermeulen H, van Hattem JM, Storm-Versloot MN, Ubbink DT, Westerbos SJ. Topical silver for treating infected wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD005486. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005486.pub2). Perhaps this should be noted in the article? Another, more recent review comes to the same conclusion: Storm-Versloot MN, Vos CG, Ubbink DT, Vermeulen H. Topical silver for preventing wound infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD006478. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006478.pub2.Desoto10 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I've already said, I'm not saying that a patent is measure of notability. There are several things however in favor of notability of silversol. One is the FDA clearance, second is the EPA approval, third is the research http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228968107_Effect_of_Prophylactic_Treatment_with_ASAP-AGX-32_and_ASAP_Solutions_on_an_Avian_Influenza_A_(H5N1)_Virus_Infection_in_Mice which shows that silversol is effective in vivo. Shall we ignore this study merely because it shows a positive effect of cs use?

Regarding The Cochrane review, in 2007 Silversol wasn't yet approved by FDA. Again, we are not sure that Cochrane review has included the research and data on Silversol in it's review in 2010 either. But you can include the results of the latest Cochrane review in the page, so that the article will have this data as well.Ryanspir (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Removing of "Start-Class Alternative medicine articles"

I propose to remove it.

Various types of Silver has got many approved uses in the traditional medicine and it's written in this article.Ryanspir (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

That is up to the project to decide. Mikenorton (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm changing my proposal. It should be connected to the project on the official medicines as well. As the people said on the talk page, no one objects that silver is useful for external treatment and is used as such by doctors in a traditional medicine. Ryanspir (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Bias and promoting personal views

It seems to me that most of the editors are trying to edit the article as in order to promote their personal views. As a result, the article looks highly biased. I propose that the editors will put their personal position aside, and introduce all data, both favorable and not, regarding silver and cs use in particular for both external and internal use. I believe that the section on Silversol is important, because it shows the good side that at least one cs compound has been approved by the FDA for the external use, and use in the hospital including emergency rooms, as well as residential areas by EPA, and has shown some in-vivo activity. That would allow the article to be less biased and introduce all views to the readers.Ryanspir (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Do you, Ryanspir, have any connection whatsoever to American Biotech Labs or to any distributor of their products? You don't have to answer, but I sure would like to know why you are so interested in their products.Desoto10 (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss about improvements of the article. Its not a page for discussion on silver, nor who is working where, nor a place to promote ones personal views. The reason i have selected this company, and that is to satisfy your curiosity, is because they are the only ones who performed extensive official research on cs, including peer reviewed articles, like the invivo in mouse. So far, they are the ones who are trying to bring cs into traditional medicine in the most effective way.Ryanspir (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Not Prohibited

"..including the warning by the FDA that any OTC products that contain silver and are to be taken orally are prohibited and, therefore, illegal in the US.Desoto10 (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)"

That is not correct. *They are not prohibited by FDA and are not illegal in the US*. Where did you get this info from?? One can still sell them. What they are prohibited however is for claiming any therapeutic effect. Ie, currently cs can be sold in US, but those who sell, cannot say that it will cure or be effective for any disease or a condition. This is in regard only for INTERNAL INGESTION and it doesn't include cs approved by FDA for external use. It would be highly useful if you would provided references for your statements so that all of the participants on the talk page could see how much your statements are being correct. Ryanspir (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

You are correct. The actual statement on the first page of the NCCAM webpage is:

"In 1999, the FDA prohibited the sale of over-the-counter drugs containing colloidal silver or silver salts because they had not been shown to be safe and effective. However, colloidal silver products are still being sold as dietary supplements or homeopathic remedies. Consumers should be aware that unlike some homeopathic remedies, which are so diluted that none of the original substance is present, some colloidal silver products marketed as homeopathic may not be extremely diluted."

I will change products to drugs. Thanks.Desoto10 (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you took text from the article which already specifies "drugs".Desoto10 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Safe & effective?

> Silver is also promoted within alternative medicine in the form of colloidal silver, although it has not been shown to be safe or effective.[1]

Re Effective:

Scientific study: http://www.silver-colloids.com/Pubs/biostudies.html
There is also the rather evident fact that most of the rest of the article talks about how silver is indeed effective at killing bacteria
There is also the increasingly popular use in swimming pools of colloidal silver to kill bacteria and colloidal copper to kill plant life. The results of such regimes are clearly visible in a matter of weeks
And finally, there is a large number of people who have used colloidal silver numerous times for various infections with a higher success rate than achieved by prescribed antibiotics.

Claims of ineffectiveness tend come from people that confuse the antibacterial product with some of the wilder claims made about it. If for example one were to claim aspirin cured cancer, the reality that it doesn't does not make aspirin an ineffective product, it just makes that claim false.

Re safe, the large number of people that have used it and the miniscule amount of resulting side effects make it one of the safest antibacterials known.

> Folks, the world already defines "colloidal silver" as a suspension of micro-particles in a liquid, designed to be swallowed in the hopes of some internal medicinal benefit.

No, its simply a suspension of silver micro-particles in a liquid. If a subject is to be discussed logically one must get the basics right.

> Medical authorities and publications advise against the ingestion of colloidal silver preparations, because of their lack of proven effectiveness and because of the risk of adverse side effects such as argyria.

Since this risk is miniscule compared to the risks of FDA approved antibacterials, or even of eating peanuts, its hard to believe that's the real reason.

> In the United States, the FDA prohibits the sale of over-the-counter silver-containing drugs because they have not been shown to be safe and effective. [18]

Since neither of those points is true, the reason can only be something else.

As for what else, opinions vary. The usual suggestions are ignorance, profit, the desire for control, conspiracy theories, etc. I'm not aware of any hard evidence that can tell us what the real reasons are. Tabby (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:MEDRS to find out a bit more about what can and what can't be added to the encyclopaedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. you need to present the results of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, not reports from a microbiology testing lab.Desoto10 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

congressional testimony

In what way do you editors suggest this information can be incorporated into the article? http://lifesilver.com/testimony.htm the full transcript is available at http://commdocs.house.gov. i'm not suggesting it for medical claims per se, but i guess it can be incorporated in other ways. Ryanspir (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

The reason I provided the link to lifesiver.com is because they have only the testimony of the director of American Biotech Labs. However http://commdocs.house.gov has a full version including the parts of the hearing not related to silver. As far as I understand the testimony at lifesilver.com and commdocs.house.gov are the same in relation to the silver.Ryanspir (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

For desoto10

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss about improvements of the article. Its not a page for discussion on silver, nor who is working where, nor a place to promote ones personal views. The reason i have selected this company, and that is to satisfy your curiosity, is because they are the only ones who performed extensive official research on cs, including peer reviewed articles, like the invivo in mouse. So far, they are the ones who are trying to bring cs into traditional medicine in the most effective way.Ryanspir (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Turning blue

I would like to make a bit of research into whole of the issue of turning blue. It's my impression, that this shouldn't be listed as adverse health effects, but rather that section should be under something like "recklessness long-term overdosing" or "using preparation which contain a lot of silver". Also, if there wasn't any documented case of turning blue in the last 10 years, I would also move it in Historically section. Could please someone provide a link to the most recent documented case of turning blue? I DON'T PROPOSE ANY CHANGES AT THIS TIME.Ryanspir (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

"A case of argyria: multiple forms of silver ingestion in a patient with comorbid schizoaffective disorder"[2] was published may 2012 and "Localized Cutaneous Argyria: A Report of 2 Cases." was published in august 2012[3]. So yeah its still ongoing. It also turns out that it can happen faster than previously thought. See "Rapid onset of argyria induced by a silver-containing dietary supplement"[4].©Geni 15:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a potential side-effect and the current wording is fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

clarifications

I assume when you read about fda clearance i mentioned you didn't read previous sections on the talk page. Kindly read them so i won't need to repeat myself. Now, as judith said, if in ghana cs is approved for internal use as homeopathic perhaps we may mention about it in this article. And its interesting to mention, that she agrees that in these concentration of 10 ppm which is indeed very low there are no published cases of turning blue. However, i disagree with her assertion that its not effective, because the same silver sol at concentration of 22ppm is cleared by fda for external application. Ryanspir (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a good independent source for approval in Ghana, and even if we did the fact would be unlikely to be notable. We should concentrate on the approval situation in the USA and Europe, because other countries tend to take their cues from there. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghana approval

its an interesting topic. According to medrs any national health authority is a valid source. They didn't write there any info what countries's national authorities are not valid sources. Kindly correct me if i'm wrong. Ryanspir (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS in a nutshell states "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies". What reliable sources attest to whatever regulatory body in Ghana being regarded as expert, respected, well-recognized, etc.? Biosthmors (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:MEDRS is the place to discuss the idea proposed at my talk page, where it was said that "Medrs says 'nationally recognized expert body'. Certainly ghana's fda is their nationally recognized expert body." Biosthmors (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is definately not a Quackery.

Colloidal Silver is not a snake oil. It has worked for me and thousands of other people for thousand of years.

The MayoClinic and "Colloidal Silver Products". National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. December 2006. Retrieved 2008-10-06 which is a reference #1 are clearly BIASED and somewhat outdated. I would suggest all the people who write in a negative way about colloidal silver, do try to take it at least once. They would probably not write such reports again if they have got integrity. When my stomach is in disarray and painful due to a food poisoning, and after drinking a bit of Colloidal Silver, in 15 minutes it is all gone, should I still continue to believe FDA?

All the people who believe FDA stories that Colloidal Silver taken internally produces no curing effect should read the book "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen and reflect on the sentence: "The king is naked." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.17.24 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 31 October 2012

I really would like to believe and trust FDA, but how can I ignore the obvious fact that it works on me and thousands of thousands other people over untold number of years?

And regarding "n 2002, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) found there were no legitimate medical uses for colloidal silver and no evidence to support its marketing claims. Given the associated safety risks, the TGA concluded "efforts should be made to curb the illegal availability of colloidal silver products, which is a significant public health issue."[67]" and become gray or blue color, there are two magic words "CORRECT DOSAGE".

In fact Colloidal silver is much more tolerant for overdosing. You can drink 10 times, 20 or even more times the recommended dosage and you won't experience any side effects, these comes from my own experience and that of others. But try to drink 10 or 20 or more tablets of any FDA, TGA or whatever else approved traditional anti-biotic and see what color will your body take :).

And, in addition, that cases where people's bodies would change color due to silver ingestion were due to using old methods, whereby the silver particles were big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.120.119 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 November 2012

some clarifications

1. Silver-containing wound dressings have been cleared by the FDA as medical devices. 2. Silver-containing drugs, in the form of topical preparations containing silver sulfadiazine, have been approved by the FDA for burns. 3. No silver-containing drugs of any sort, that are to be taken by mouth are approved by the FDA. This includes prescription and over-the-counter drugs. 4. "Supplements" containing silver are allowed to be sold over-the-counter, as long as they are not marketed as drugs. 5. OTC silver-containing "supplements" that are labeled for topical (external application) are not legally marketed in the US.

The FDA refers to these products as "containing colloidal silver or silver salts".Desoto10 (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Desoto10 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Telepathy

i see no connection between a peer reviewed article which i use for a reference and personal beliefs of one of the members of the journal which published it. I think you have went too far, i haven't yet seen any such discussion on wikipedia talk pages in that an editor will try to prove his point by trying to disregard the peer reviewed article and doing so by investigating personal beliefs of the members of the journal. No any reference on this page have been approached in this way. Ryanspir (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Provide some context, please, for the thing you're commenting on? Is it in the article, the sections above on this Talk page, or what? -- Scray (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that Ryanspir is referring to the conversation above about whether or not an article in a particular journal qualifies as being "peer-reviewed" or not. Given the journal's definition of the review system that it uses ("super peer review" see above) I suggest that we cannot claim the article is peer reviewed in the normal sense.Desoto10 (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The comments should've been made there, or referenced that section explicitly. -- Scray (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dynamics of this article

I have been reading the talk page archives in order to understand the dynamics of this article and would like to advise to do the same to the other editors. The reading is quite interesting. I would like especially refer to the first entry of the second archive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver/Archive_2. The editor has written it in 2009 and three years later we are still facing the same issues. That editor has written a few reasons on why and how this article is so biased towards negative appreciation of cs. Ryanspir (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Another interesting read is Archive 3, the first entry too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver/Archive_3.

These authors voice the opinion, that this page is under "inquisition investigation" or rather forcefully edited to represent only one, so-called more or less "traditional view". Some people are abusing their status of admins and editors in order to suppress any positive information, in some cases even peer-reviewed articles or information on the FDA cleared cs product. On the other hand, the same editors give undue weight to negative studies. And some, even decide to completely disregard WP policies. An example is Vsmith, who had directed that MEDRS should not be used on the medical article. Have you ever seen that admin will disallow using MEDRS on a medical article? And the reason is merely because he, personally, uses MEDRS seldom.Ryanspir (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

You're putting words in to the mouths of other editors, I can find nothing on this talk page where Vsmith says anything of the sort - at one point he says that he rarely needs to use it, which makes sense as if a source fails to meet WP:RS it will certainly fail to meet WP:MEDRS. Mikenorton (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the exact words of other editors can be read in the archives. They call the people who suppress positive information about cs on this article "fanatics". Regarding Vsmith, you can find more of his opinions about not using medrs on this medical page because he uses it seldom in his talk page.Ryanspir (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Itsmejudith

according to vsmith its prohibited to use wp:medrs on this page. Because he uses it seldom. He is the admin here. the issue of turning blue has got a reflection in this article already. This page is for discussion on improving the article, not for expressing personal opinions of the editors. The section which i proposed to include personally deals only with external application to burns, abrassions, etc. do you think external application results in turning blue too? If so, please provide a link and i'll add it.Ryanspir (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

The question of what sources are to be used is one for all of us, not just admins. Please propose sources here. They should be judged according to MEDRS, and then if we can still not agree, a question should be posed on WP:RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

People, PLEASE! The article already clearly states that silver in many forms has valuable applications in medicine, including an as antiseptic for external wounds and as a disinfectant of surfaces and clothing. However the article also clearly says that swallowing colloidal silver is not recommended, and might well be harmful. All of this has been referenced to very reliable sources, most of them medical journals and health organizations. Ryanspir, what more do you want to add here? Please could you propose actual wording of additional sentences on this talk page, with references, and state clearly where in the article you would like them to be added? If its reliable material that is not already present, I am happy to add it. Wdford (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally agree that MEDRS should be used and I'm happy that other editors agree with me. So do we have a consensus that MEDRS will be used? Any editor other than vsmith has any objection to MEDRS being used on this page?Ryanspir (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

To wdford and other editors: Well, if this is the case, how about removing the "although one study in 2004 of a colloidal silver solution marketed on the Internet showed no such antimicrobial activity.[52]" It seems that not only you, but everyone agrees that in vitro silver is useful. Also, on technical grounds it seems this study is not peer-reviewed, thus is not RS according to MEDRS. It's in the alternative medicine section. So I'll remove it for now.

Between FDA which has cleared the silversol for external use for several conditions and NCCAM, I'm giving more weight to FDA. It's clearly that NCCAM refers to internal use, however, since they say "Colloidal silver is not safe or effective for treating any disease or condition." we cannot change the wording which would refer only to internal use as this would be misquote. So I propose to delete this statement as contradictory to the reality as of 2009 when FDA has cleared SilverSol.

Colloidal silver can cause serious side effects. The most common is argyria, a bluish-gray discoloration of the skin, which is usually not treatable or reversible." - I'm proposing to delete this section as well, because there is a laser treatment which reverses the effect of argyria. And, all the information about agryria has been already moved to the relevant section of adverse effects. I won't be doing this edit now however, will wait to see if anyone objects. Ryanspir (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

To wdford and other editors regarding what I propose. I propose to include a section about SilverSol, more or less in the way I have written it. Perhaps to include this study as well: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228968107_Effect_of_Prophylactic_Treatment_with_ASAP-AGX-32_and_ASAP_Solutions_on_an_Avian_Influenza_A_(H5N1)_Virus_Infection_in_Mice , because it's peer-reviewed, ok for MEDRS and shows an effect in-vivo. You may change the wording or write your own based on the information I have proposed. And perhaps add some info from the congressional testimony.Ryanspir (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir

You removed a citation to NCCAM and to an article in the journal Medical Engineering & Physics (which is peer-reviewed) - I have restored them both. To repeat what has been said here many times by many different editors, Silversol has no place in this article - please give up on this. Mikenorton (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It contradicts reality. I'll revert your edits. If some article is peer-reviewed, but became outdated because new peer-reviewed article has appeared and FDA has more weight and authority over NCCAM. NCCAM is only dealing with the segment called alternative medicine. But we are talking about silver in the traditional medicine.

We cannot present a wrong reality. I'll revert your edits, show your reasons on the talk page instead of creating edit war.Ryanspir (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

You were bold, I reverted you, so we should then discuss no? But you've reverted back to your favoured version, so who exactly is edit warring? How on earth you can read the sources and come up with "It contradicts reality" is beyond me. What the FDA says in no way trumps the NCCAM statement - the NCCAM is also a US government agency. Also note that your 'preferred' publication includes the following quote "It is acknowledged that the effects seen in the present study, while of considerable interest, would need to be repeated to confirm that the observations were not due to mere chance." Mikenorton (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Ryanspir is continuing to confuse the use of colloidal silver as an alternative medicine with its use elsewhere. In either case, we don't just delete sources like this. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not continuing to confuse. We do should delete obsolete information and the references and the sources which are not in compliance with wiki policies. So I'm going to delete it again, since you didn't reply to my argument posted on your talk page for more than a week. I'll wait however a few more days to see if you will reply.Ryanspir (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)