Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

History

Agree with Ryan that this text was inappropriate placed where it was "but medical literature from 1935 and 1940, when argyria occurred more frequently, emphasizes it as a socially debilitating condition.^[1]^[2]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

References

^ Gaul, L. Edward (1935). "Clinical Spectroscopy — seventy cases of generalized argyrosis following organic and colloidal silver medication, including a biospectrometric analysis of ten cases". JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association. 104 (16): 1387. doi:10.1001/jama.1935.02760160011004.
^ Bryant, B. L. (1940). "Argyria Resulting from Intranasal Medication: A Clinical and Experimental Study". Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 31: 127. doi:10.1001/archotol.1940.00660010128013.

point of zad

You have entered into rhetoric. But i'm just asking a factual clarification. Distinct or not? Yes or no. If no, 3 examples of such studies or maybe even 2 from all the sources on this article including advisories. Please just anything which proves your point. Ryanspir (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Another section created on the topic of zad. Why the obsession? I've only been here for a bit but zad's contributions seem to me to be content based and to the point. Can we de-personalize this please? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nano particles

Already exists: Silver nanoparticles.Desoto10 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Presumably nobody wants to create an article called "Medical uses of silver nanoparticles" and so the Silver nanoparticles article should (and does) just send the reader back here for medical uses.Desoto10 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail Article

This article appeared in the Daily Mail, reporting the statements of Ike Iheanacho, editor of the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1266093/NHS-wastes-25m-silver-dressings-dont-beat-bugs.html

Would this be a suitable addition to the article, perhaps in the "cost" section?Desoto10 (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the underlying Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin cited in that 2010 newspaper already used here?? Zad68 03:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It is, but I don't have access to the full article, as usual and thought this might provide some context from the editor of the journal. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. His opinion does lend some weight to Jmh649's statements about the expense of the Ag dressings given their less than stellar performance. If you look at the statistics in the abstract, they claim 25% of the cost is for Ag dressings which make up only 14% of total numbers of dressings suggesting a higher price, although we cannot include that unless a real person says it. Maybe someone with the full-text journal article can chime in.Desoto10 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No neutral point, selective choosing of sources designed to give undue weight to unfavourable information

This article currently doesn't look like any other Wiki article. It looks that the majority of the current editors are creating a propaganda article by disregarding all favourable research. These editors are simply projecting their personal opinions and upon them forming the article. And dynamics of the talk page is unfavorable for constructive work. What shall be done in this case per wiki policies? Ryanspir (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

While no one has convinced the Cochrane collaboration. And there negative opinion of these products shines through. This is as it should be. If they change their position we will definitely change ours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Doc that what's been happening is that the majority of the editors here are accurately summarizing the information found in the best-quality reliable sources in proportion to the viewpoints found in them. Per the definition at WP:NPOV, this means that this article isn't showing WP:UNDUE problems. A Wikipedia article isn't biased or having undue weight problems if the overwhelming consensus as found in the best-quality reliable sources is reflected in the article, whether or not that overwhelming consensus is positive, neutral or negative. Zad68 15:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

i think however that its not the case. I think the reason the editors here are acting the way they are acting is different. Some editors here didn't post even one favourable edit, desoto didn't investigate even one unfavourable source in order to discredit it. :) so let me quote; in a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.Ryanspir (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, I don't see it the way you see it. This article talk page is not the place for you to air general grievances about specific editors. If you don't know where to go next try the teahouse for general questions about Wikipedia processes. Zad68 16:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ryanspir – I find it hard to engage with a general complaint. Is there a specific point of content you have in mind? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please keep article-related commentary here

There is a lot of chatter going on on editor talk pages about this article that should be here. If you must comment on someone's talk page, please at least copy it over here so that others can keep up. Thanks. Desoto10 (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

hard surface disinfectant

Liquid sprays containing silver may be used as a hard-surface disinfectant.[24] And reference 24 says: "^ Tian, J; Wong, KK; Ho, CM; Lok, CN; Yu, WY; Che, CM; Chiu, JF; Tam, PK (2007 Jan). "Topical delivery of silver nanoparticles promotes wound healing". ChemMedChem 2 (1): 129–36. doi:10.1002/cmdc.200600171. PMID 17075952." Changing to EPA approval because hard surface disinfection and wound healing isn't the same thing. Regulatory approvals should not be also changed by references to research, because the approvals themselves are based on the approved research. Someone please use the above reference for it's merit. Ryanspir (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

EPA approval is US-specific and confined to a narrow context of approved used; a general research statement is globally applicable, and so preferable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's US-specific, agree. Fully complaint with wp:medrs, so don't understand your complain? You have specifically reverted to the INCORRECT reference which I have fixed, that is disruptive editing. Ryanspir (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to invoke WP:DE for the "R" portion of a WP:BRD cycle. I have replaced the current text with a broader statement, backed by a more recent source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit "Silver and silver nanoparticles are used as an antimicrobial in a variety of industrial, healthcare and domestic applications." seems ok to me. Ryanspir (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This looks like an application to the EPA [1] and a primary research study using an animal model [2] Like look 10 mice in total. Removed per there be consensus against using primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary study which are adjunct to secondary sources are legitimate. Not EPA application, but EPA approval. Ryanspir (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS: "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. However also: a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources

""Primary" is not another way to spell "bad" "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." I personally always used primary sources only to support a direct quotation. Ryanspir (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

NCCAM vs FDA

Following the discussion in section "NCCAM is not reliable and its statements contradicts reality": I propose to consider all NCCAM statements which contradict FDA not to be used on this article. I was saying before that NCCAM is not a reliable source per se, but at this time I would like to withdraw this position. Now I'm referring only to the statements of NCCAM which contradict FDA. The reason being is that NCCAM is an advisory authority whereby FDA is a regulatory authority. Also NCCAM by virtue of it's mandate cannot issue advisories for FDA cleared devices (nanoparticles gel for external application in our case). Ryanspir (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC) "although they are not effective for any known condition and carry the risk of serious side effects" referenced to ^[1] - Removed because it's at least one silver nanoparticles gel is cleared by FDA for external application. Ryanspir (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Then the FDA is a good RS for regulations; the NCCAM for biomedical assessments. Personally, I think information about what American regulators have done is rather parochial. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please enlighten me how did you come to these conclusion? NCCAM is quoting FDA in its statements. They didn't perform any research on silver nanoparticles at all, and the problem is they are quoting OLD fda statements. I respect your personal opinion, however medrs provides that FDA is an ideal source. Also FDA isn't issuing clearances without proper research and testing by independent institutions approved by FDA. Ryanspir (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The cited document from NCCAM uses references other than old ones from the FDA, and cites a number of "Selected References"; the document was last revised Feb 2012. A medical and scientific organization is a better source for biomedical information than a national regulator. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

NCCAM which is part of the NIH looks like a good source for alt med. What is the issue with it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources pointing out the alleged contradictions specifically, then that might be appropriate. Otherwise no.Desoto10 (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The FDA and NCCAM are both reliable sources here. To suggest otherwise indicates that one has failed to read or appreciate Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. As a separate matter, the contradiction Ryanspir is describing does not actually exist; it's the product of his misinterpretation of the FDA and NCCAM sources. MastCell ^Talk 06:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

FDA don't simply issue regulations and clearances. They do that upon available research and scientific proof. I have clearly said that at this time I'm not asking to consider NCCAM as a not reliable source. Currently I agree with mastcell that both are appropriate sources. And I agree with desoto that it's appropriate in case of such situation. So lets examine FDA and NCCAM advisories and see if there are any contradictions as I claim it to be. (Or it's my misinterpretation as fellow editor mastcell has suggested). Ryanspir (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We do not typically examine sources closely to see if there are contradictions. We only state these if they state they have found contradictions. To do otherwise sounds like original research.

We could state the FDA states X and NCCAM states Y but beyond that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We are summarizing and selecting the sources per medrs. Summarizing is not an original research. But when source A contradicts source B we have to use a common sense. If FDA would quote from NCCAM, I would choose NCCAM over FDA. But if NCCAM quotes from FDA and by the virtue of it's name can deal only with alternative medicine, their current statement is invalid. *They cannot issue advisories for conventional medicines, including external gels cleared by FDA which can be prescribed by conventional doctors and bought in convectional pharmacies. Ryanspir (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Who judges source A contradicts source B? Whose common sense. You can bring your proposed text forward as a RfC here if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Us, the editors. We are judging. Our common sense. My proposed text: I currently agree with FDA advisory. It's negative in my opinion, but not too much. Ryanspir (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

References

^ "Colloidal Silver Products". National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2006. Retrieved 2008-10-06. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Current research on nanosilver

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18069039

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17468052

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18854209 - However the third article PMID 18854209 is a recent review article in a MEDLINE-indexed peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor. In my opinion, that article is worth looking into and possibly using in this article. (By Zad)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19141039

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523420

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22286985

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21839058

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22654516 - Cites http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21839058.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20730806 - A recent 2012 review - secondary source. Peer-reviewed medline indexed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22117785 - Dental oriented 2011 review.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22029522 - Coping with antibiotic resistance: combining nanoparticles with antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. Secondary source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23163208 - Synergy between novel antimicrobials and conventional antibiotics or bacteriocins. Secondary source. "..examines the enhancement of antibiotic efficacy by their combination with new antimicrobials, such as plant-derived compounds, metal ions and nanoparticles and bacteriophage lytic enzymes"

That is what I'm asking to be included in this article (as per talk on Alex and DocJames). Lets see if the editors here will change their minds after reading these articles or they will choose to continue to cling to the misconception that nanosilver is a quackery. On a side note, a lot of work for desoto to discredit all of them :). Ryanspir (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but it's no good just listing sources; a source needs to be evaluated in respect of some text it is used to support. Everything is RS for something. What actual edit is being proposed? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"It's no good just listing source" means "It's bad just listing sources"? Should I remove all of them from the talk page? That is precisely what the research in "No neutral point" section is about "in a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan ..". As long as you have a formed opinion ANY facts I introduce aren't going to change it. You will just perceive them negatively. If I would post some sources to more quack sites which would not fail medrs you would be happy and start working to quote and use them in the article.

"Everything is RS for something?" I doubt this statement applies to the context of wikipedia.

I'm not proposing an edit at this time. I'm proposing to all the editors to make the edits using these sources. Isn't it supposed to be a collective work based on agf? Isn't it a talk page which is here for us in order to improve the article? Aren't they sources which are good per wp:medrs? I'm kindly asking *you* and every editor here, to open them and read them while thinking not how to contradict them and on which grounds, but how to use them in a positive way. Then summarize and post. Every paper here is a real research, peer-reviewed at respectful journals, real scientists worked on them. Ryanspir (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So pick one and suggest something to say with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is the "medical uses of silver". Not "medical research that has used silver" (which would seem to only be a non-notable ridiculous list article in my opinion). Did not use the distinction of clinical relevance when making that list of sources? I don't know. I haven't even checked one title, to be honest. Biosthmors (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC

Why don't you try it? :) It's not as bad as it sounds to accept new facts. Once you will accept that nanosilver has a legitimate use and is absolutely not quackery (you see real scientist performed these research and more importantly they are published in reliable journals) as I have mentioned before. All of them are peer-reviewed by yet other scientists and some are peer-reviewed review articles which again were performed by scientists and peer-reviewed by yet other scientists. And on a side note, they were published by journals members of which probaby do not believe in telepathy :) (that's one for desoto) Ryanspir (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Have reported issue taking place here at ANI [3]. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. And I'm notifying the following mentioned editors: Yobol, Zad, Alexbrn, Biosthmors and Doc James.

Ryanspir (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A broken ref

This ref goes to a page that says nothing about silver a b c d e "Colloidal silver". Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. May 16, 2011. Retrieved January 2, 2013. and is not a sufficient quality reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is suitable enough for historical content. But still needs to be fixed as it goes no where. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It fails wp:medrs. I'll remove it from the statement Colloidal silver may interact with some prescription medications, reducing the absorption and effectiveness of tetracyclines, quinolone antibiotics, levothyroxine, and penicillamine.[9] because it's not historical. Ryanspir (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is also used in " and some clinical studies in humans demonstrate toxicity." Will remove it too. Ryanspir (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone removed the Cancer center reference and substituted NCCAM for the same sentence. However NCCAM has no mention of tetracyclines, quinolone antibiotics, levothyroxine, and penicillamine. So I removed the mention.

On the other hand, here we can use one of the recently found sources. So I would propose to use the source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17468052 to balance this statement. The reason being that in this and some other researchs nanosilver shown a synergistic or enhancing action when used with traditional antimicrobials.

So I would propose something like: "Colloidal silver may interact with some prescription medications, reducing the absorption.[33] However recent studies found out that antibacterial activities of penicillin G, amoxicillin, erythromycin, clindamycin, and vancomycin were increased in the presence of Ag-NPs (colloidal silver) with the highest enhancing effects were observed for vancomycin, amoxicillin, and penicillin G against S. aureus." Ryanspir (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No it is a primary source and in a petre dish which is contradicted by more recent high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathic?

We have in the lede: "...remain legally available as dietary supplements or homeopathic remedies, although they are not effective..." referenced to NCCAM and FDA, neither of which seem to mention homeopathic. We also do not mention homeopathy again in the article. I have deleted reference to homeopathic. Please revert if you have sources and would like to add something in the body of the article.Desoto10 (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Even the harshest critics of colloidal silver would agree that it is not a homeopathic product. It usually has a slight metallic taste and the strength can be roughly measured with a TDS meter, so obviously there really is silver in the product. (Not to mention the supposed side effects). Any mention of homeopathy in this article is confusing and pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.139.52 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As for me, you could remove about homeopathy, since it's factually not homeopathic as I agree with comment #2. However it was approved in some countries (example Ghana FDA) as one and sometimes it's being sold as such. Ryanspir (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

NCCAM state "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", so it may be worth a mention. Mikenorton (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mikenorton. In fact, I think what should be said is: "most colloidal silver products marketed as homeopathic are not extremely diluted". Ie change of "some" to "most" and "may" to "are". In any case I agree with his direction of thinking. Ryanspir (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This was my mistake. I have added homeopathy back to the lede and to the alt. med section. I paraphrased NCCAM's bit about non-dilutedness.Desoto10 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Homeopathy should be in the lead though. It's not really important. I'm suggesting to remove it from lead and keep it in the stronger terms I proposed in alt. med. That would be just perfect balance. Something like: "most of the colloidal silver products that are marketed as homeopathic are not extremely diluted and cannot be considered as true homeopathic products". Ryanspir (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ions Vs Inactive metallic particles? (and Removal of Text)

"Colloidal silver preparations primarily deliver inactive metallic silver, rather than the active microbicidal silver ion."

I removed the above statement because its vague and incorrect. Its vague because it doesn't state which 'colloidal silver preparations' its actually talking about. There are many different kinds. And its factually incorrect anyway because the vast majority of colloidal silver solutions sold, or made at home, are actually Ionic because they are made by electrolysis. And electrolysis works by reducing solid silver to Ag+ ions. Thats a law of electrochemistry, so the statement is basically wrong. Faradays equation even puts figures on the actual weight of ions released. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

And heres a link to a company that is probably the leading laboratory for independently analysing colloidal silver. If you care to wade through it all you'll find many lab reports that show that most colloidal silver products are ionic - containing by weight up to 90% of the silver in the ionic (Ag+) form, http://www.silver-colloids.com/Reports/reports.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.213.159 (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore you are relying on a single reference to support a statement that I've explained above is wrong or at the very least confusing and debatable. By the way, saying that 'colloidal silver preparations' deliver 'metallic' particles instead of the necessary ions is as simplistic as saying sugar cubes can't deliver energy because they are in the solid form rather than the liquid form required by the body. Or to further confuse things, how do you think metallic silver coatings and dressings work? You can't 'coat' anything in silver ions. (Silver ions can only exist in pure water. They are the dissolved state of silver). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.213.159 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "Silver ions can only exist in pure water"? Biosthmors (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ag+ is the dissolved form of silver. (Just like Na+ and Cl- is the dissolved form of salt). As soon the water is removed it solidifies to silver oxide which, by the way, does does not re-dissolve simply by adding water, like salt does. And it cant exist in anything other than pure water because the Ag+ ion would immediately combine with any impurity anions such as Cl- to form silver chloride particles for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.213.159 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide high-quality sources for any statements that you add to the article or as reasons to remove content. Silver-colloids.com, a commercial site run by one of the cs vendors is not a high-quality source. There is very recent work out of Rice which may be useful. I'll try to find it again.Desoto10 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Theres not even an abstract available for the reference 'So what if you are blue?' So we don't know if the statement is quoted correctly let alone whether its in context. On that basis alone the statement should be removed. Surely, as an absolute minimum, an abstract should be available otherwise we could make up anything and quote it to some PUBMED article that no-one can read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.213.159 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving more chemistry details, but we cite things all the time that aren't free. That's part of why Wikipedia exists. Try a local library or university database. Sometimes you can log-in from home with a password. You can't revert something because you can't access it. We WP:AGF. I kind of see what you're saying but some Silver_chloride#Chemistry still dissolves so I don't understand your rationale. And going from silver to silver ion would be an oxidation, not a reduction. So I'm not confident you have an argument here. What are you trying to say? Biosthmors (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it takes a lot of pure water to dissolve a very small amount of silver chloride.(1 litre to dissolve just 1.9mg). So silver ions in impure water will not last very long as ions. But thats getting off track anyway. My argument is that colloidal silver made with electrolysis and pure water contains long lasting Ag+ ions in abundance, and thats how most people involved in this 'alternative medicine' aspect would consume it. Blakebeau (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This was removed "Colloidal silver preparations primarily deliver inactive metallic silver, rather than the active microbicidal silver ion.^[1]" While the ref is from 2007 I do not see any new high quality sources that refute it and thus returned the ref and text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This by the way is not a RS [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not RS? Perhaps its not which is why I did not put it in the article. But I used it to support my argument here. Look, I'm hoping common sense will prevail. I really don't care too much either way, but the statement is just factually wrong. And you say you want a better ref, isn't the laws of chemistry good enough? When you pass electricity through silver electrodes in pure water you dissolve the silver and create Ag+ ions. That's just a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.213.159 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, you need quality sources. Wikipedia does not operate using "common sense" or "facts". We summarize what quality sources say. If what you are proposing is so obvious, then it should not be an issue finding good sources.Desoto10 (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A study from Rice U. in Nano Letters has appeared that demonstrates fairly conclusively that nanoparticles of silver have zero antimicrobial properties (yes, yes, just the ones that they tested, but they synthesized a variety of sizes). By removing oxygen, they prevented Ag° from being converted to Ag+. As they did this, the apparent antimicrobial properties of the silver nanoparticles were reduced to negligible values. They conclude that the antimicrobial properties of nanosilver are entirely due to their conversion to silver ions. They also conclude that nanosilver is an excellent delivery system for silver ions. The study causes a real problem in interpretation of the results of previous studies because, by and large, people use atomic absorption to measure "silver" release from dressings which does not distinguish between silver and silver ions. Thus, we need to be very sure that our reference actually provides some reasonable explanation for the statement that dressings release primarily silver metal rather than silver ions. Like anon, I don't have access to the source, so if someone who does could check this out, that would be great. Of course, this study is "preliminary" in Wikispeak because it is a new primary source. Here is a press release from Rice: http://news.rice.edu/2012/07/11/ions-not-particles-make-silver-toxic-to-bacteria-3/

Desoto10 (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to change it again, because I can see you are biased about this. But I'll just say 2 things. Firstly. I'm not saying that metallic particles are bio-active. I actually agree that ions are probably the most bio-active form. What I am debating here is the statement that most 'Colloidal Silver Preparations deliver metallic silver not ions.' That statement is simply false as some basic chemical knowledge proves. And secondly, how about accepting that I too am making changes in 'Good Faith'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.213.159 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ip editor, you may consider to create an account on wikipedia, this way it will be easier to discuss. I personally see that you are acting in a good faith. Factually however you are both wrong. There are many preparations of colloidal silver. Some, especially home made are ionic silver. The ones available commercially contain various ratios of metallic silver to ionic. Example 75% metallic/25% ionic. Ryanspir (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ryanspir. Factually I am not wrong. The vast majority of commercial and home made colloidal silver that is ingested is predominantly ionic. I stated this in the first post I made in the new Ions V metallic section that I created above to explain this. Unfortunately the most reliable lab that proves this statement is a commercial one and is not acceptable here. http://www.colloidalsciencelab.com/ (CSL is associated with another company that makes their own brand of colloidal silver. Nevertheless, after years of reading about this subject, my contention is that CSL is probably the only lab that both fully understands what they are analysing, and has the full range of equipment to do it properly). Instead, we are lumbered here in the article with a reference we cant read that I suspect uses as its source an even older reference that probably refers to silver protein products that are rarely seen these days. My very first comment when I removed the statement the first time was that the statement was vague and did not specify WHICH colloidal silver preparations it was talking about. That alone should have disqualified the statement then and there.Blakebeau (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

To anon--You may have missed that I was agreeing with you. Given recent, preliminary reports that elemental silver nanoparticles may have no antimicrobial properties, except as a source of Ag ions, it is important that we have a quality source for our statement about the release of only elemental Ag from nanoparticle devices. If nobody can pony up the article I will get it elsewhere, but it will take a couple of days.Desoto10 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Desoto. I'm not talking about 'nanoparticle devices'. I'm talking about the ordinary colloidal silver that people drink. Thats really what this article is about isnt it? The clear, almost tasteless stuff that they buy in health food stores or make themselves at home. That's the real 'raison d'etre' for this whole article isnt it? Isnt that why there are warnings about adverse effects and ineffectiveness in just about every section! Now 'that kind' of home made or bought colloidal silver is largely ionic, because its made very simply by electrolysis. When you pass low voltage electricity between two silver electrodes in pure water you create silver Ag+ ions. Solid pieces of metallic silver do not fall off electrodes, not even nano-particle sized pieces. The only thing that comes off the electrodes is soluble silver ions. Thats just an electrochemical fact. (And its simply proved by the way with a TDS meter that can roughly measure the amount of Ag+ ions in the water.) Blakebeau (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No, this article is about Medical Uses of Silver. The approved/cleared silver-containing products are wound/burn dressings and coatings of certain medical devices. There are, as you mention, unapproved "nutritional supplements" containing silver that are either purchased or made at home. "Colloidal silver", especially as used in alternative medicine, is not an exact term and can refer to a variety of compositions containing silver and silver ions among other ingredients. Some argue that, in fact, colloidal silver is the same thing as silver nanoparticles, but it seems to me that there is very little consensus as to what colloidal silver refers to. Maybe it is best described as a marketing term, like superfruits. I was hoping that the Wiki article on silver nanoparticles would provide some clarification, but no. I understand electrochemistry. However, what I or you understand is not what we are looking for. What we are looking for are reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, such as reviews in reliable, peer-reviewed scientific journals that say, for example, that all or most or some or no commercially available "colloidal silver" products contain only ionic silver or that they contain a mixture of silver nanoparticles and silver ions. If you want to add something along these lines then find some sources and add the commentary.Desoto10 (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have said 'this section' (alternative medicine) not 'this article' is about the stuff people drink. Anyway, I maintain that the ordinary home-made or store bought 'alternative medicine' product commonly called colloidal silver or silver water is largely ionic because its (usually) made with nothing but pure silver and pure water. I've provided commercial references for this eg http://www.purestcolloids.com/notcs.php (Yes I understand they are not RS) and links to the Wiki article on electrolysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis.

Heres a few quotes from the Wiki article...

1, "An electrolyte : a substance containing free ions which are the carriers of electric current in the electrolyte. (In pure water the 'free ions' can only be the Ag+ ions released by the silver electrodes because there is no other source of ions.)

2, "A direct current (DC) supply provides the energy necessary to create or discharge the ions in the electrolyte. (Again, the discharged ions are the Ag+ ions from the silver electrodes. This is how colloidal silver is made at home.)

Yet a single unreadable source (that seems to be more relevant to medical dressings than alternative medicine) is being used to deny this. According to the reference, and its placement within the section, we are to believe that common colloidal silver is 'metallic'. I've googled and can find no other references or sources that support that claim so I propose to remove it yet again for the reason that too much weight is being given to a single, out of context, reference that offers us nothing but a vague and confusing abstract, which incidently I cant find anywhere else but in the Wikipedia article itself. (The abstract does not appear on Pubmed).Blakebeau (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

References

^ Okan D, Woo K, Sibbald RG (2007). "So what if you are blue? Oral colloidal silver and argyria are out: safe dressings are in". Adv Skin Wound Care. 20 (6): 326–30. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000276415.91750.0f. PMID 17538258. Colloidal silver suspensions are solutions of submicroscopic metallic silver particles suspended in a colloid base. These products deliver predominantly inactive metallic silver, not the antimicrobial ionized form. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

quackwatch 2

What do you mean please 'with attribution'? Isn't it a bit old and contradicting 5 year rule on which we have a consensus? Ryanspir (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

see WP:INTEXT for an explanation of attribution; I don't believe the 5-year rule applies to QuackWatch, which is established RS on matters of quackery. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

1. We have a consensus to update all sources to 5 years per wiki policy. Why this reference shall be treated differently? 2. Who has assumed that nanosilver is quackery? We have lot of research including fda and epa approvals. Do you imply that those goverment national us authorities approved quackery? Ryanspir (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch's characterization of colloidal silver as "quackery" is for consuming it. Please provide the link to either the EPA's or FDA's approval for consuming nanosilver for any purpose? Zad68 18:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We do not have consensus get rid of all sources older than 5 years. What we do have consensus for is that if newer sources refute older sources than we get ride of the older sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In all of the statements they don't differentiate between internal and topical use as current fda advisory does. The research upon which this article was written is even more outdated than the article itself. They brand colloidal silver as quackery for all uses. Ryanspir (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Per wp:medrs Use up-to-date evidence Shortcut: WP:MEDDATE

Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published.

Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.

Please refer to Current research section which established that there is an active research going on nanosilver. Ryanspir (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that "active research" has no necessary implications on medical use. That makes sense, right? Biosthmors (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Conclusions of DR are here [5]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Colloidal silver

Where should Colloidal silver redirect to? IMO here. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It currently redirects to silver, which doesn't make sense because that article doesn't even have the word "colloidal" in it. I'll redirect here. Biosthmors (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that was this, which now goes to the same place Colloidal silver goes to, a section in this article. Biosthmors (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not redirects to silver. It redirects to Silver nanoparticles which has a link to this article. Colloidal silver = Silver nanoparticles. If you will revert again it will result in immediate dispute resolution and warning for disruptive editing. Ryanspir (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It should redirect here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes sounds like dispute resolution is needed. If you wish to change something you need consensus to make that change, not consensus to keep it. Even though you wished to make the change I have begun the consensus process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to demonstrate your claim that "Colloidal silver = Silver nanoparticles" by citing reliable sources in order to convince people of that. Saying something doesn't make it true. Biosthmors (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, right on this article: "Historically "colloidal silver", a liquid suspension of microscopic silver particles". From the article silver nanoparticles: "Silver nanoparticles are nanoparticles of silver, i.e. silver particles of between 1 nm and 100 nm in size." From nccam: "Colloidal silver consists of tiny silver particles suspended in liquid." From FDA: Silver ingredients may be identified on the label of a dietary supplement as "colloidal silver" (a liquid suspension of tiny silver particles). Ryanspir (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus appear to be to link the article here at this point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You state "From FDA: Silver ingredients may be identified on the label of a dietary supplement as "colloidal silver" (a liquid suspension of tiny silver particles)." but provide no link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll provide link just now in the new section "Current FDA advisories". Ryanspir (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely erroneous consensus. But thank you for it. Any reasonable person will realize that per submitted evidence colloidal silver = silver nanoparticles and != Medical uses of silver. And I'm the only one who has provided the evidence at this section. However the decision has been taken by you and Yobol which will prove at ANI that this group of editors are biased and willing to disregard any evidence. Thank for supplying another fact in support of my statement. :) Ryanspir (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We can reassess when you find a bunch of other editors who agree with you. You could try filling a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Could we use this article here?

http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/3/103002/---/l=2/changeLang=true/lartid=103002/orga=/type=/theme=/bestellbar=/new_abt=/uac ? And the articles of Bernd which are being refereed there? Moved to the article's talk page per request from Desoto. Ryanspir (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it!Desoto10 (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

to support what text? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not listed as a review article by pubmed Nowack, B (2010 Nov 19). "Chemistry. Nanosilver revisited downstream". Science (New York, N.Y.). 330 (6007): 1054–5. PMID 21097924. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How about the other articles of Bernd mentioned there? And according to wp:primary sources, primary sources doesn't mean they are bad or not acceptable. It can be even more usable than a secondary source per wp:medrs. I suggest you to review this policy called primary and secondary sources. If zad would read the policy carefully he wouldn't encourage to remove all primary sources just because they are primary. Ryanspir (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here it goes again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_source Ryanspir (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Current FDA advisory

FDA advisory http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/Alerts/ucm184087.htm "Silver ingredients may be identified on the label of a dietary supplement as "colloidal silver" (a liquid suspension of tiny silver particles).." Ryanspir (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

an excellent example of why the word "may" should never be used in normative statements; does it imply permission or description here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should misunderstand it because they use 'may' instead of 'can' or 'are'. We understand what they meant even if they didn't choose the words to be super-precise.

But anyway, the first part of the sentence is irrelevant and I wasn't referring to it. The meat is here: ""colloidal silver" (a liquid suspension of tiny silver particles)". They wrote the term "colloidal silver" and put it's definition in the brackets in case someone doesn't know what does it exactly means. Ryanspir (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've lost the thread here. Is this relevant to some edit being proposed? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A few of the key statements from this are "It is unlawful for a manufacturer to represent a dietary supplement containing silver as able to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, or cure any disease." and "However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth."

But what do you want to say with this ref again? How about "Colloidal silver can be described as a liquid suspension of small silver particles."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the topic is the discussion on the redirect. I have written in that section that we will continue the discussion in this section. In that section Doc James had asked to provide the link to the FDA advisory. That's what I did. Ryanspir (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure so the FDA statement says that colloidal silver is a liquid suspension of small silver particles and that it is a dietary supplement which indicates "medical use". Thus why it links here and IMO should continue to link here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So, lets go step by step: (by the way please read the reply on my talk page)

1. Colloidal silver = liquid suspension of small (nano) silver particles = Silver nanoparticles

2. Colloidal silver is a substance and Silver Nanoparticles is a substance.

3. Colloidal silver doesn't indicate medical use. I can take colloidal silver and pour it out in the sink. Will it cease to be called Colloidal silver? We shall not confuse between the name of the substance and it's uses.

Please tell me which one you disagree and how. Ryanspir (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure small does not equal nano. Colloidal silver in common usage typically means medical substance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to Ryan I think this is an issue over which reasonable people may disagree; however, I disagree with him: this article here seems to me to be the most logical redirect for Colloidal silver. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if I got you right. You are saying that 'small' doesn't mean 'nano'. Did I get you right? Do you agree with points #2 and #3 and disagree with #1? Ryanspir (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't recognize the validity of your questions. I just judge that colloidal silver is more strongly associated with medical uses than with some physical characteristic of it. In RL, just google it to see this is so. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex, I agree with you. Colloidal silver is strongly associated with medical uses, and its in the very same way as Silver nanoparticles are associated with medical uses, for they are the same thing. The search in google for "colloidal silver silver nanoparticles generates 224,000 results. I would say 'colloidal silver' is a historic and folk's name, silver nanoparticles is a more scientific name, nanosilver is a shortcut of the scientific name.

Here are some of the search results:

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/CS/C2CS35289C - Controlled synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles in organic solutions: empirical rules for nucleation engineering .

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn301724z?mi=z48nb4&af=R&pageSize=20&searchText=aging - Formation Mechanism of Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles: Analogies and Differences to the Growth of Gold Nanoparticles.

http://iopscience.iop.org/2043-6262/3/4/045007 - Powerful colloidal silver nanoparticles for the prevention of gastrointestinal bacterial infections

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956566312002412 - Robust one pot synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles by simple redox method and absorbance recovered sensing Ryanspir (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)