Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

initial comments

"Continued use of colloidal silver may result in argyria". How does one use colloidal silver?
S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.132 (talk • contribs) 2002-11-22 T13:57:40 (UTC)

Changed to "ingestion". Use as a disinfectant on nonliving surfaces does not cause argyria. Use of silver on burns can also cause argyria, but I'm not sure what form of silver is used on burns, and I'd rather be gray than die of infected burns. -phma —Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreAbbat (talk • contribs) 2002-11-22 T17:12:24 (UTC)

"Pass 30 volts through two silver electrodes in pure water for a few hours" 1.12 V Car battery is enough (camping/unsafe water!) 2.Pure water is non-conductive. Use mineralized or add salt. 3.3 minutes is enough for a glas of water. Water desinfection: Use 0.3% or 0.32% industrial solution - 1 drop for 2 liter / 2 drops for 1gallon of water - wait 20 minutes. ATS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.221.239.120 (talk • contribs) 2004-03-18 T02:12:16(UTC)

Volts are not "passed through" but rather "put across." Seeing as how colloidal silver is bullshit anyway, I guess it doesn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.15.117 (talk • contribs) 2005-03-14 T06:43:57 (UTC)

I fail to see how silver in any form is related to bovine fecal matter. Unfortunately any "cure" is going to have side effects. It is up to the individual to learn as much as possible about what they have been prescribed. This includes F.D.A. approved drugs and "natural" treatments. Speaking from personal experience. I have been on fire. I received second & third degree burns on my forearms, neck, earlobes and collerbone area. I was taken to U.C. DAVIS in Sacramento. They are a trauma center and also have a burn unit that is at top in regards to advances in treatment. I was given a topical cream for my burns, called Silvadene. I only used it a couple of times, as I "tarnished" where it was applied. I switched to a vera/E solution that I made myself. I cannot honestly say that the cream I was given would not have worked, my decision was based more on esthetics. Point being is that there must be some sort of truth to silvers anti-(infective,septic,biotic) qualities or they (hospitals) wouldn't use it, or maybe, we can come up with a much darker reason for its use.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.123.64 (talk • contribs) 2005-04-24 T14:26:16 (UTC)

Comment from Helmar: Regarding argyria: the amounts you have to ingest over an extended period of time to contract it vastly exceed the amounts one indigests using the electrical method of producing CS (instructions followed, of course) and then using it topically, read: when the need arises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmar (talk • contribs) 2005-05-05 T07:22:36 (UTC)

Sorry Helmar, but that's not true. The fact that people consuming electrolytic colloidal silver have, in fact, acquired severe cases of argyria is ample proof that it is not true. You reference to "(instructions followed, of course)" is the No true Scotsman fallacy. -- Securiger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Securiger (talk • contribs) 2005-05-05 T16:12:00(UTC)

The main page says "Use to disinfect unsafe water", but then goes on to say "...CS... has been claimed to kill various microorganisms", and then even questioning its efficacy in an in vivo environment. This is a direct contradiction, because what does "disinfect unsafe water" mean if not killing microorganisms, and making it safe for an invivo use, read: drinking water.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmar (talk • contribs) 2005-05-05 T07:22:36 (UTC)

"even questioning its efficacy in an in vivo environment". I can't understnad what you meant to say there, unless you misunderstand the difference between in vitro and in vivo. It's efficacy in vitro is not questioned (quote "While high concentrations of colloidal silver will certainly kill many bacteria in vitro")—it's just that it has no particular advantages over anything else. Questioning its efficacy in vivo is limited to the far, far too mild statement that "it is controversial". In reality it is a good deal more than controversial, but on WP we like to say things mildly to be NPOV. -- Securiger—Preceding unsigned comment added by Securiger (talk • contribs) 2005-05-05 T16:12:00(UTC)

I have been using self-made CS for several years now, internally and externally - with astounding results and without any side-effects. I take it every time a cold tries to get hold or on skin infections. As and aside, CS, ozonated olive oil, bee pollen balm and food-grade hydrogen peroxide are my only "medicines".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmar (talk • contribs) 2005-05-05 T07:22:36 (UTC)

Read "Anecdotal evidence" to understand why this is irrelevant. -- Securiger—Preceding unsigned comment added by Securiger (talk • contribs) 2005-05-05 T16:12:00(UTC)

There is ample documentation available that testify to the efficacy and safety of CS, and I will soon amend them to the current entry on CS, which is misleading and not giving CS the credit it deserves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmar (talk • contribs) 2005-05-05 T07:22:36 (UTC)

That would be introducing serious bias which I would feel obliged to balance by bringing out much stronger criticisms. The article currently attempts NPOVness by being very mild in its criticism of internal use of colloidal silver, just as it also isn't promoting. We don't even begin to mention the pyramid schemes and shonky fly-by-night dealers who have been pushing it; nor the fact that the "controversy" has practically 100% of real experts lined up on the "anti" side, with the "pro" side consisting entirely of people who believe medicine is some sort of conspiracy; nor that the known mechanisms for colloidal silver killing bacteria cannot work in vivo, nor indeed in the presence of large amounts of healthy tissue. -- Securiger—Preceding unsigned comment added by Securiger (talk • contribs) 2005-05-05 T16:12:00(UTC)

Sorry Securiger, what you post goes past introducing bias, and is bias. Including the first mistake you could make by generalizing Colloidal Silver, which cannot be generalized because all Colloidal Silver is made differently. And you blatenly lie when you say "with the "pro" side consisting entirely of people who believe medicine is some sort of conspiracy..." since I am not on the pro side with conspiracy theorys but with tests and trials done by universities and the NIH, to prove many things you speak are nothing but lies. and these test results I speak of are in-vivo and in-vitro, proving another statement you made to be nothing less then a falacy. And the particular Colloidal Silver I speak of is called Silvicidal, which is what was tested. Also note that Silvicidal is nitrate and nitrtite free.

In test reports and I quote (written by the professors testing it, obviously no room for tables or data)"

"show in vitro effect with Mild Silver Protein as well as Silvicidal on on HIV replication in the human T cell line. Inhibition of HIV-1 replication is dependent on concentration"

--Temple University

"results show that exposure to HIV-1 to 1000 ppm of Special Formulated Mild Silver Protein for one hour at 37degrees C completely eliminates infectious HIV-1 as measured by syncytia formation on SupT 1 cells"

--Temple University

"Preliminary studies on your silver preparation (1500 ppm) show it to be effective in inhibiting and killing strains of candida albicans and Cryptococcus neoformans"

--Temple University

"In tests, BSK cultured spirochettes were treated with 150 and 15 ppm of your colloidal silver. When examined 24 hours later, none of the treated cultures contained live spirochetes. Few spirochetes, all dead, were observed at 48 hours"

--Department of Health & Human Services

Need I go on? Is it really necessary? Let me know if it is because I have plenty more test results. On Lyme disease, on rats (showing that no matter what concentrate and how much, there are no pathological changes, no advesre side-affects, it is not toxic, and more), tests on E Coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae (resistant to penicillin), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (resistant to ampicillin, tetracycline, trimethyoprim, cefazolin, defoxitin, defuroxime, and dephalothin), and Enterococcus (resistant to penicillin, vancomycin, kanamycin, polymyxin B, tetracycline, colistin, and cefotetan). So what could you possible say about that? It kills anti-biotic resistant strains. It is not toxic. You can basically figure all of it out for yourself now. And hopefully you won't make the mistake of generalizing Colloidal Silver, because now you know 100% that you are completely wrong. -- Jason1170 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your claim that your CS is special because it is "made differently" is specious. Chemical compounds have no memory of their manufacturing method. That's a fundamental tenet of chemistry. Almost every CS peddler emphasizes that only their product is "real" CS, and the others are "ionic" CS, and therefore bad.

You keep touting your test results that show your CS has in vitro results, but haven't provided these results. Where were they published? I also daresay that bleach would have a similar effect, but I don't see anyone drinking that. eaolson 20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, any outdoor water purifier contains carbon to filter out larger particles and silver to kill the microorganisms. They've been in use for decades, yet no one doing trekking or who requires such filters seems to complain of contracting argyria.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmar (talk • contribs) 2005-05-05 T07:25:03(UTC)

First: the majority of water purifiers do not contain silver at all--but a few do. Second, we are talking there about solid silver particles, not colloidal silver; the person drinking the water is not ingesting any silver. Third: in vitro =/= in vivo. OK? -- Securiger 16:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

CS and argyria

Dear silver-interested people. I am Michael, i studied human medicine long time ago, but i am now in a complete different business (meteorology) and i have nothing to do with any silver-business. I wrote some time ago a webpage in german language concerning cs and its possible side-effects, med. applications of silver and so on... I just translated it myself in a "quick and dirty" way into simple English. It should not be used as an English lesson but rather as a text to find keywords for further exploration of the internet or libraries / medline as far as cs or silver is concerned.

translation is here: http://www.redecke.de/michael/silver.htm (without ads of course)

After reading that text it will be clear that the content there is quite different from the article's content. I think therefore that the article's content should be changed, and i will participate in modifying it in the future, i want to do it together with other users here. Michael Redecke 16:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I deleted "for 2-3 minutes per glass" as it take a lot longer than this to make CS. For 32oz of 50'C initial temperature distilled water it takes more than 2-hours to make CS that with daily external use is effective against body odor bacteria for a week. The best shelf life for CS I produced was 2 weeks (again this refers only to use as a deodorant) and took 4 hours using 20'C water. I removed the voltage only when the current levelled off which occured at 9.5mA. When 'cooked' for an hour less the effectiveness period dropped from 14 to 6 days. I added external link to http://www.silver-colloids.com/Pubs/pubs.html At the bottom of this web page is a free scientific booklet/PDF written by Professor Ronald J. Gibbs in 1999. Gibbs was director of the Center for Colloidal Science at the University of Delaware for about 20 years. Gary C 29 June 2005 07:43 (UTC)

I deleted "colloidal silver is toxic" and the reference link to http://rais.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/silver_f_V1.shtml The study that was referenced regarding silver poisoning in rats did not state that colloidal silver was used.

I added a reference to the fact that argyria is a dermatologic condition and is not fatal. Sadacushman 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the reference DID state that colloidal silver was used for the 100mg/kg figure at 3.1.1.2. The 222mg/kg/day appears to be silver mass, and doesn't specify the form, so I guess that can go. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I deleted the 100mg/kg figure in error. I added another reference to the statement that argyria is not fatal. 24.116.228.8 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a peer-reviewed article in Neuology, stating that it can be fatal. This case involved 4 months use of oral colloidal silver, resulting in a persistent vegetative state and death. Pustelnik (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources for claim not all cs causes argyria

On the page there is a wee bit of controversy over whether all methods of cs production/ cs preparations cause argyria or whether it is only poorly made or constant voltage methods. While there is no definitive evidence either way (apart from bountiful anecdotal evidence which rightly doesn't count) on what causes argyria (as cs isn't patentable so there is no incentive for companies to carry out expensive tests, especially clinical trials on people) there is evidence that the constant current method of cs production produces smaller particles (or at least the particle size doesn't increase as the process continues as voltage reduces as the conductivity of the water increases, thus constant current is maintained & current doesn't increase splitting larger particles of silver off into the cs as in the constant voltage method)[1] Also see [2] for info on argyria & the quantities of silver required to cause it & info from FDA saying no reported cases of Argyria.

Argyria is typically caused by compounds that are molecularly bound to silver (usually protein compounds), or ingestion of large quantities of large article size (constant voltage) cs, or at least have been in all the cases I've seen (Rosemary Jacobs & Stan Jones most high profile.[3]

There is a research paper [4] measuring the amount of silver accumulating in the body with cs taken daily for around 3 months which concluded that "Ingestion of properly prepared CS does not result in silver accumulating in the body." This implies that as argyria is caused by accumulation of silver there is a low risk of argyria (Of course it doesn't prove you can't get Argyria from properly made CS as it is impossible to prove a negative). While these sources are, mostly, pushing cs there is the fact that on cs any source is even for it or against it as there is no incentive (other than scientific curiosity) to carry out often expensive research. Nevertheless I hope these links persuade you that not all cs is going to cause cs. I'll revert the last change to the page in anticipation of this. AllanHainey 07:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Allen ! 3 links out the 4 you cited are typical ads-pages for CS, and the link to Mr S. Geigle shows also ads for colloidal silver on that page. Your link (4) to Mr Altman s personal „report“ has never been reviewed or published as scientific valid article. It is also not medline-listed, the author (engineer of metallurgy/not a doctor) is unknown in the medline. The disclaimer on that text is also very strange and completely uncommon for a real scientific paper. Usually the author of a published paper wishes his paper seen as a guide, and not to be seen as „not meant to be a personal guide for...“. Furthermore we should not base the content in this wikipedia article on texts that can be found on webpages of companies selling machines producing CS. We have ads and spam enough in the internet. I hope you agree this time. Many scientific and reviewed articles published so far say clearly that argyria occured after inhaling or ingestion of elementar silver (for instance inhaling silver-dusts, contact with silver earrings and so on). Some reference: Author Mackison F. W wrote in 1981: „Silver metal and soluble silver compounds can cause discoloration or blue-grey darkening of the eyes, nose, throat, and skin..“ and Friberg L wrote in 1986: „..Repeated exposure to silver salts or colloidal silver by inhalation or ingestion brings about effects classically described as generalized argyria...“ many other papers say the same, must i leave a long list here ? In the meantime, the published articles (in scientific journals) concerning argyria after use of electrically made colloidal silver form a real pile on my desktop. Please tell us, from where your opinion comes from that there seems to be a debate in the scientific world, that argyria should not develop after ingestion of elementar silver or colloids ? Your opinion „typically develops“: what do you mean ? BTW: the patent-question is completely irrelevant here, the dietary-supplements industry (not only in the USA) has its own powerful „lobby“ and is a very „healthy“ business. Michael Redecke 10:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not asserting that argyria doesn't develop after ingestion of elemental silver or colloids, but that there are different methods of colloidal silver, some of which haven't led to any cases of argyria that I know of (constant current)(mostly this is personal & anecdotal experience as I know of pleanty of folk who have used cc cs for years with no ill effects - but personal/anecdotal evidence has no place in an encyclopedia) as particle size of cs is always a lot lower than the other methods such as constant voltage (& especially silver salts, silver compounds etc which are very different to cs).

I'd say that most info on cs (for or against) is accompanied by ads or os put out by someone selling something as cs isn't (doesn't have to be) independently assessed by FDA, etc (as it isn't worth a company's while paying for tests to meet FDA approval as they can't have sole right to sell cs, as unpatentable) as it costs money to carry out research.

I take your point about link (4), I don't know anything about how proper research papers are presented. I don't really agree with you that all types of cs result in argyria & the quotes you give don't seem to distinguish between cc cs & silver salts/silver compounds but I won't re-revert the article as I don't want to get into a editwar over this.

By the way if it isn't any trouble could you add a list of those research papers you refer to as I may check them out of interest. AllanHainey 11:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Allan ! you are dividing info concerning CS in pro and against info, but you forget that there is plenty of neutral non-biased info available too. In medicine, somebody promoting or offering a specific drug must show that it is effective, not harmful and that there is a reasonable balance between benefit and side-effects (and costs). It is not the duty of any patient / customer to demonstrate dangers or uselessness of a particular drug or therapy. Here we must consider that this article is read by many people, some seeking help, some beeing perhaps a bit confused, and in case of doubt we should be very careful with our statements. We have a responsibility. I will compile such a list for you in the next days and leave it at your talk-page if you don t mind. Concerning preparation: there are some other known ways for cs-preparation: a) using colloid-mills b) light-arc with ag-electrodes under water c) electrically using const. voltage with or without current limiter or using const current (and/or both time limited) d) using alternate tension or even HT (drinking-water ionators on large passenger-vessels) and e) pure chemical procedures (reduction of ag-salts). Michael Redecke 20:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the discussion about which kinds/types/forms of CS that may or may not cause argyria would be more appropriate on the argyria page itself? I think a mention of it is appropriate here, since at least some CS does cause argyria, but the discussion of the condition should be on the condition's page. eaolson 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

colloidal or ionic

The description of a colloidal generator using batteries is pure nonsense. This is simple electrolysis, either constant V or I.

This process produces 90% silver ions, which turn to silver chloride in the stomach and has no effect.

See [5]

--207.194.162.118 16:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC) EricG

hello Eric G ! Your reference [1] is maintained by Francis S. Key, who received this nice certified letter from FDA in dec 2004: http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5126d.htm and at the same time your [1] tells us what „...good science in the field of colloidal silver....“ should be. Imho its better to take a look at peer-reviewed scientific literature. silver to ingest makes no sense. Ionic or not. http://www.redecke.de/michael/silver2.htm michael Redecke 19:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A common beginners mistake. During the process, tiny pieces of silver are broken off the electrode as well, and this is what makes cs. You can easily test this yourself, if you pass higher than normal cs currents you see larger visible pieces break off. Tabby 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tabby, that is nonsense, and you are grievously ignorant of basic chemistry and physics, never mind medicine. Stop promoting nonsense that can cause disfigurement or death to gullible people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.127.115 (talk • contribs) 2007-11-03 T00:46:13(UTC)

Preparation

I've moved the preparation methods to their own section. I put that section at the bottom because I think a person coming to an encylopedia to find out about something would be more interested in "what is is" rather than "how to make it." This is also not a comprehensive list of preparation methods, and I suspect is just how people make it to use as a nutritional supplement. eaolson 14:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

A short note on the link to www.quackwatch.org

It should be noted that although quackwatch claims to be impartial, it has been proven, sometimes in court, that the person behind the website has been wrong on many occassions. Mr Barrett goes beyond mere criticism straight into fanatical debunkery. Therefore, I would consider the link to his website to be taken with the caution of possible bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusty007 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 T23:09:04(UTC)

Source please? The only thing I'm aware of being "proven" is that Mr Barrett accepted money from a pharma company to speak at a conference, and he has been quite upfront about it. 70.19.74.231 17:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The quackwatch article tells us more about the bs surrounding cs than about cs itself. There really is one and only one question that is relevant, and that is: what microbes does cs kill, if any? Almost the entire quackwatch article is about anything exccept the one and only thing that is even relevant. Its classic propaganda. Nearly all the content of that article is of no real relevance to the one and only relevant question.

There is one part that quackwatch claims addresses the real question, their trial of cs products. However their very varied test results make it clear that they are not testing one substance and preparation, but a range of different ones. Since it makes no attempt to determine which of said products are and are not cs, it really tells us nothing about cs. It is however a fair account of the products _sold as_ cs. And from the test results we can fairly say those are 2 different things.

As a summary of cs, the quackwatch article simply isnt one.

Tabby 09:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Metcalf

Note that the Mark Metcalf mentioned in the Controversy section is not Mark Metcalf the actor. At least, judging by the photos on the Web, I've been able to find, they look nothing alike. eaolson 00:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

i know that colloidal silver - mark metcalf, he is a former musician, he was in the band of german singer Nina Hagen. he is more than convinced to use that cs btw, and he is active in the colloidal silver business, so not to be considered a neutral source of information. Redecke 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Colloidal silver

See bottom of page for discussion of 'anti colloidal silver' bias in this article.

There are so many paid "Debunkers" on the web it is hard to get to the truth. Any Links to quackwatch are suspect. THis guy is a paid hack subsidized by organizations supporting the pharmaceutical companies- that was proven in a court of law. Colloidal Silver is approved by the FDA for bandages allowing the claims that it has antimicrobial properties. Gargling with it has widespread testimonials for it's ability to shorten sore throats. Topical application of 100ppm solution to herpes sores results in very fast healing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.173.199 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-18 T21:06:46(UTC)

Prove it.00:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.176.150 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-19 T00:05:39(UTC)

The weird thing is doctors acknowledge silver is a great anti bacterial. Look at all the recent hype over nano silver. People are trying to make paint with it (http://www.livescience.com/technology/080421-silver-nano.html) for use in hospitals for example. No doctors are denying silver "doesn't work". But suddenly when we are talking about CS it is hogwash? What a nonsense. The article mentions a quote from the TGA that bacteria can develop resistance against silver. That is so wrong it isn't funny anymore. There are definitely sinister motives at work here.62.194.60.69 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some verification on those claims? For example, I can't find anything reliable about the Space Shuttle and colloidal silver anywhere in a quick google search. All it comes back with is a bunch of CS "nutritional supplement" sites making that same claim, but no source for the claim.eaolson 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Google is based on the most popular sites, the most visited are shown first. In other search engines you can pay money to get higher rank. Go to the burn-ward in the hospital if you want answers or talk to people who nurse newborn babies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.202.191 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-04 T18:41:12 (UTC)

You have also made a number of questionable edits today. Would you mind filling out the edit summary explaining the reason behind your changes when you make an edit? eaolson 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just had someone remove a fact link to Quackwatch simply because it was to Quackwatch. [They also removed a second link for the same fact that was to a pro-silver site with a viewpoint contrary to Quackwatch's.] This seems entirely unreasonable. I don't personally think that Quackwatch is free of bias. Nor is the AMA. Nor is the person who is upset with Quackwatch. Nor am I. We all have our biases. But Quackwatch is endorsed by reputable, mainstream organizations such as the AMA, US News and World Report, and Forbes magazine. [6] Would links to those organizations be reverted away as well? This seems ridiculous. 12.36.115.67 08:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC) qkeith

Do you all know what the American doctors motivation is!? -money! & get people sick, & not give people any cheap ways to become healthy! Is there enough people that believes this way to be able to earn enough money on CS? Of course, but what motivation do they have for selling CS, before any other semi-placebo potion? CS speaks convincingly for scientists & common people, American doctors speak only convincingly for common people!Sun gazed 18:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well of course the motivation is money, isn't it always? I don't know about getting people sick, they tend to do that enough on their own. But there is no doubt Colloidal Silver manufactured the right way would take quite a few drugs of the shelfs and a few billion away from the pharmacuetical companies. And thank God that finally theres tests out that show what it does if made the right way. I mean honestly I've only heard of one Colloidal Silver made the right way, and I'm not going to advertise it, but I'm being real honest and the test results are finally out. The other ones there are that I've seen don't even remain Colloidal, all the particles come out of the liquid they're in, and on top of everything else some of them are toxic. I mean it's a wonderful product, but only if it's made right, not made by all these con-artists trying to get rich quick. - Jason1170 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Argyria and particle size

Some edits are popping up suggesting that argyria doesn't happen if the particle size is small, or that it's because "impurities" stick to the particles making them bioaccumulate. If this is true, it needs verification, not just blind assertion. eaolson 04:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting major changes

I'm reverting some huge changes made today by 208.54.221.246. They appear to be major cut-and-paste jobs from unspecified other sources, with footnote numbers even still intact. They don't all appear to be relevant to the article, either. Formatting alone would be a huge job. eaolson 02:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

it was i who edited that hugh article. i cut and pasted it from my own files which I WROTE every word of. if you find it elsewhere it was stolen from me.every word of it is true and factual. all the footnotes in the extensive biblio are applicable. this was my first edit so i probably didn't do it right. did you not see the quotes from the U.S. NAVY corpsmans manuals?????????

i also edited an empty file on colloidal gold. i notice it too was deleted but in it's place was a great article on colloidal gold which seemed to have it's basis in my article. i'm ok with that.

why can't you do the same with colloidal silver since i furnished more than enough STUDIES to give you a head start on it.

PS. i tried to contact you otherwise but couldn't find any way to do so. the contact us just went around in a circle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.112.36.216 (talk • contribs) 09:19, May 24, 2006.

The effort you went to is certainly appreciated. But you also put an enormous amount of information, almost completely unformatted, into the article at once. My guess is that you are a new editor of Wikipedia. May I gently suggest you revew the Getting Started section of the help file? I would also suggest you register a user name. The edit to this talk page was made by 66.112.36.216, but the edits to the CS page were made by 208.54.221.246. It can be a bit confusing.

Most of your additions seemed to lack the verifiability necessary for inclusion in WP. For example, the statement, "There has never been a known case of ARGYRIA stemming from COLLOIDAL SILVER use" is flat-out wrong. See, for example, [7]. ALL CAPS are also not needed there.

Towards the end of the article, you copied the entire text of an article, "Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Rationale for the Use of Colloidal Metallic Gold." Unless you are Dr. Abraham or Himmel (which is certainly possible) this is an outright copyright violation, and needed to be removed immediately. eaolson 17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How Colloidal Silver is Made

I know scientists who manufacture a type of Colloidal Silver, and I can assure you and reasure you it has nothing to do with any form of electircal charge. Further, tests were done on these products produced via electrical charge, which revealed ion content to be no more then that in regular tap water. I cannot really tell you how the Colloidal Silver I'm talking about is made without risking duplication attempts. However I can tell you there are many methods of making Colloidal Silver, and each method produces a different product. I suppose I could give away one obvious ingredient: distilled water. I know it probably wasn't so much help, but at least you know the truth about these "electrically charged" products.

It should however be noted that modern products manufactured with an electrical charge may be formulated now to actually contian silver ions, however you do know that the electical charge has nothing to do with it. -- Jason1170 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Information on how it is made is very on target for this article. The different methods by which it is made are presented in concise and summary form. It is interesting information and it belongs here. This is not a "detailed how-to" that might more properly belong in wikibooks. It is germane, appropriate and illuminating. Intersofia 15:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for telling people how to make questionable and possibly unhealthful remedies. Also without a source, the section seemed to be original research. Additionally the Made by colloid mills is or appears from that link to be in error. If you want to include more info on commercial production techniques based on viable references (peer reviewed) then add it in that context and not as a how to do it at home guide as it seems there could be liability problems with the latter. Vsmith 00:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is merely your POV that it is questionable and unhealthful. It is a fact that colloidal silver is used extensively in hospitals as a topical anti-bacterial and anti-fungal. I believe metallic colloids are made through electrolysis. As a science teacher, you are in a good position to source this in detail if you wish. Also, I think the liability concern is bogus. Intersofia 17:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "how-to" is probably not the best title for this section. I suggest "Manufacture Methods". I will seek to inform myself better before elaborating this section. Here are some apropos links you might want to read on the subject:* http://www.silver-colloids.com/Papers/FAQ.html * http://cfs.umbi.umd.edu/cfs/reprints/rde/la_19_6236.pdf Intersofia 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that silver colloids can be made by electrolysis, and that appears to be a common method. But that doesn't mean that it's the only way they can be done. I suspect that they can be made by entirely wet chemical methods, as is often done with gold, or by other means. Nevertheless, it is officiall WP policy to not include instructions. I think it would be acceptable to say that these colloids are made by electrolysis, but detailed instructions are inappropriate (see WP:NOT).

I've seen the WP:NOT Don't see anything specific that applies. Could you be more specific please ? Intersofia 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some verifiable source for silver colloids being commonly used in hospitals? eaolson 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have friends that work in hospitals that have confirmed that they used it routinely. I have not yet searched for a printed or internet source. Intersofia 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems the FDA agrees with my assessment or POV as well as its Australian counterpart. Read the article, to tell someone how to make something that is banned over-the-counter sales of such products, or their advertisement as providing health benefits is highly questionable and a potential liability issue. It seems silver-colloids.com is rather a biased source - appears to be a marketing outfit pushing so called scientific studies to support their products which are sold by www.purestcolloids.com. Reference to those websites does not help your arguement - links to those websites are simply spam. Vsmith 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that the FDA is financed by some of these big pharma concerns that would prefer you use their patent-pending antibiotics? True that the first link I put in seems to be from an outfit selling colloidal silver, but it does seem to be an informed page that speaks to the issue. Notice that the link is in this discussion page, not the article. I meant it as a starting point to discuss material. Argyria, for instance, seems to be associated with ionic silver colloids only, due to the fact that it binds to stomach acids and forms silver chloride. Intersofia 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's another link, that although heavily pro-colloids, has an interesting list of references at the end. http://www.observations.org/Healing/HealSubj/CollSilvr/Colloidal_Silver.html Intersofia 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure, as a governmental institution, the FDA is funded by the US government. eaolson 14:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. The independence and objectivity of the FDA has been compromised. "In 1992, Congress authorized the FDA to collect funds directly from the drug manufacturers." [8] {http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=fund+the+FDA+fees+1992&btnG=Search]Intersofia 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

It seems like there is a small edit war going on in the External links. One anonymous user keeps adding http://www.colloidal-silver-about.com [9] and http://www.silvermedicine.org [10] without explanation, and other users keep removing them. Perhaps the anon user can suggest why these links should be included?

I'm of the opinion that the colloidal-sliver-about.com link should not be included, just because there's not much information there. And the silvermedicine.org site seems to be commercial, and might be linkspam. If there is useful information at either of these sites, perhaps it should be included in the article, and they can cited. eaolson 14:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think both links should be included as they offer extended information in comparison to the information which is available at wikipedia. this article about cs is terribly short. the readers need to be provided with additional information and if not wp provides it, there must be links to external sites which provide it.

as for the concrete websites i think that they both offer information which extends the content at wp. about-c-s seems to be objective and should therefore remain. silbermedicine.org seems to be a commercial site, but nevertheless offers a lot of interesting information about cs. it should also stay here. sebastian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.236.10 (talk) 03:05, June 4, 2006

The objectiveness of a site is not a criteria for listing it as an external link. The about-c-s site does not cite its sources, and there really is very little information there, most of which is already in the article. It looks to me to be more a site built around AdSense than anything else.

As for silvermedicine, well, from Wikipedia:Reliable sources, one criteria for considering a source is, "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" Clearly, that's true in this case. SM does list a number of references in the article buried in their site. (It seems to me that they misrepresent and overstate what their references say, though.) SM might be a useful source as a link-mine for additional information and sources for this article, though. eaolson 13:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is questionable. Particularly the link section, is now entirely anti-colloidal silver POV links. This link, provides substantial scientific discussion on colloidal silver [11]. I will include in link section for balance. Intersofia 15:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[12] is used as a source for many of the claims and health benefits . If it sells the stuff, its kinda POV. Ideally we should only source peer reviewed studies.68.239.176.150 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed some external links. Overall, I think a section should be added describing the process of colloidal silver yourself. I understand that it isn't too hard and many site detail the process. Levine2112 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Different Preparations

A list of the Different Preparations is necessary in order for readers to be able to make any real assessment of each one. To lump them all under one description will lead to nothing but continued confusion.

So a list...

• electrolytic silver (most common method today)
• ground silver (the standard form of cs pre-WW2)
• electrolysis in salt solution
• any more?

Risk Assessment

A realistic risk assessment of a much repeated action is not based on imagining what could go wrong, but on looking at what does go wrong. One can imagine all sorts, but in reality some of these imagined scenarios happen, and some don't (for various reasons).

There is much talk of the risk of argyria, but one ought to bear in mind 3 things:

• argyria has resulted from use of ground silver, but not electrolytic silver. Rosemary Jacob's argyria did not result from electrolytic cs, which was not in use at the time.
• The remarkable scarcity of any reliable account of argyria resulting from electrolytic cs (just 1 case in modern decades) tells us that the real world risk is truly miniscule.
• If you look at all the possible treatments for any infection, cs is simply the safest of them all. In fact it has never posed any danger to anyone using it, an exceptional record for a medicine.

This site sums up the argyria question fairly well.

declaration of interest: I have no commercial involvement in cs or pharma. I make and use cs at times, solely because I've found it effective, the safest option, convenient and cheap. Why choose something worse is the way I see it. Tabby 09:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortened Introduction

I removed the last few sentences of the introductory paragraph, which were again (as has happened here in the past) making this article sound like an argyria article. That much information about argyria might belong in the introductory paragraph of the argyria article, but not in this one. Yosemite1967 02:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Other effects

Argyria is a genuine possible side-effect, but the statement that CS has caused "abnormal hepatic function, dilated cardiomyopathy, amnesia and incoherent speech" is questionable. Whilst one doctor has apparently examined an 'elderly man' and made this diagnosis there are no references to support it. How can he make such a diagnosis when there are no clinical trials that prove such a thing is possible? Many other diseases could cause this. Alcoholism for example. The fact he was also drinking CS could be entirely coincidental. I suspect this doctor's diagnosis is something of a 'world first'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.139.157 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. However, we cannot add our personal commentary to the article. If you would like to call the research in question , please read through WP:RS and see if there is a guideline which this may be violating as a source. Or if you can find published criticism of this research, that can be added to the article. But you personal feelings about the research should be left out. Let me know if I can be of any assistance by contacting me on my talk page. Oh, and generally, we add new discussion to the bottom of this page (and all discussion pages on Wikipedia). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence again. If you look at the reference, it's very short on details. It does not suggest the effects other than argyria were caused by the CS, just notes they were also present. If you look at the context of the four patients, the entire article is focusing on argyria caused by CS. To include this in the very lede of an encyclopedia article is giving it undue weight. eaolson 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is a bad source then certainly I agree that leaving it out is a be better choice than leaving it in with any editor qualification. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it's a bad source. It's just that it's only about two paragraphs and focuses on argyria. I think any mention of more serious side effects needs a "heavier" source that goes into more detail. eaolson 23:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That sounds right to me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My brief addition to the Article wasn't a 'personal commentary' or 'feeling'. I was simply stating that the reference quoted factually did not support the claims about amnesia etc. (WP:RS Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.) I agree however that that wasn't the right place to put the addition and I stand corrected. I'm glad to see the offending sentence has now been removed altogether. The TGA Bulletin is somewhat ambiguous but I can tell you from personal enqiry to the TGA that they did in fact mean to convey that in this particular case the doctors diagnosis was that CS had CAUSED incoherent speech, amnesia etc. (Not simply that it was coincidental). I asked them to provide a reference to support this rather extraordinary diagnosis, so they added Reference 4 to their Bulletin. I replied that this was yet another reference to Argyria (A Dermatology paper in fact) and would they please provide a credible reference that proves CS can cause any side effects other than argyria in humans. No such reference has yet appeared on the Bulletin, so as I stated at the top of this section, the diagnosis remains rather questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.139.157 (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Colloidal or ionic (2)

All of this talk of "colloidal" versus "ionic" is nonsense. When ingested, silver. either metallic or as an ionic salt, reacts with the acids in the stomach and forms a chemically active silver ion (Ag+); in fact this ion is the basis for the claims about silver's medical effects.

This article is the worst sort of ignorant quackery. If the CS advocates want to make claims about CS, *THEY* need to provide evidence other than conspiracy theories. Science is based on reality, not consensus or citations of crackpots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.127.115 (talk • contribs) 00:46, November 3, 2007

The claims made in the article, converted to scientific terms, suggest that microscopic particals of silver, consisting of dozens to thousands of atoms, are included in the liquid water. That's different than ionic. Now, I doubt the claims, but there is a theoretically testable claim, there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A Recent Case

A news footage about a CS user. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowloonese (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another link to this quite relevant case: [14] JoaCHIP (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A link to a story on this individual has been in the references section for nearly a month now - it was added about the same day the story first came out. No need for multiple links about the same thing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Journal of American Science

Interesting article, but poorly written. It does assert that silver (not necessarily colloidal) as been used for thousands of years in medicine, but does not support this with referrences. It also decribes another paper that stated that colloidal silver had no antibacterial effect. I have my doubts about the quality of this journal, though its website implies that it is peer-reviwed. Is there an independent source to rate journals by quality? Pustelnik (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Man who turned blue

Photo of man who turned blue as a result of Colloidal silver. TableManners^C·U·T 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias

There is very biased editing going on here. This article has been so thoroughly censored of anything positive to say about colloidal silver, and so loaded with argyria references that it is now hardly of any use whatsover. (What's a reference to argyria caused by smoking lozenges doing here?). Yes, silver intake can sometimes cause argyria. Point made! But most argyria cases are caused by excessive intake. Millions of people around the world drink colloidal silver every day, in moderation, and have no problems whatsoever. end —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.173.131 (talk • contribs) 13:33, February 5, 2008

We need a cite for "millions of people", as it seems implausible, as the number of doses produced by reputable (well, as reputable as can be expected) manufacturers is less that that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(1)It's completely bogus to suggest you know what 'dosages' are produced by manufacturers, "reputable" or otherwise. There are no figures available anywhere that even remotely inform us of that. (2) Why did I suggest there are millions of users? Admittedly its a guesstimate but some form CS is sold in just about every health food store in the English speaking world. On top of that there are very significant internet sales of colloidal silver and silver making machines. Plus theres an indeterminate number of people who have made there own simple silver makers with a battery and silver wires. People who make their own CS often supply it to small network of friends or relatives. So in total to say there are 'millions of users' might be an exaggeration but 'a 'million users' would not be an unreasonable estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.18.203 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(1)Talk entries go on the bottom of the page (normally) or in the bottom of the section. I don't think it was relevant to that section, but you're welcome to move it up. As for the rest, I don't think it's relevant to the current state of the article. (Which reference refers to "smoking lozenges", and are they lozenges of colloidal silver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref 15 is about argyria caused by smoking lozenges. "The case study of a schizophrenic patient with argyria which resulted from the chronic and excessive ingestion of antismoking pills contain silver, is presented. Convulsive seizures developed after the patient had been addicted to the pills for 40 years"

Reference 9 is the same as Ref 18, and both end in the statement "a diagnosis of argyria was not formally made", (so neither should even be referenced). This is typical of the double standards that always surround colloidal silver. No amount of anecdotal evidence is ever good enough, yet the flimsiest evidence from 'medical sources' gets immediate acceptance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.18.203 (talk • contribs) 2008-02-06 T04:36:31(UTC)

Toxicities

I removed the statement that "cases of kidney damage, stomach distress, and headaches have been reported as well as cases of brain and nerve damage" because the 4 references cited (13,14,15,16) simply do not support this exceptional claim. All 4 references are solely concerned with argyria. For your information this often repeated claim that colloidal silver can cause the above symptoms is highly speculative. No scientific tests have proven such a thing is possible. The claims are based on mid 80's experiments on rats (using high doses of silver nitrate) that lead the researchers to THEORIZE that excess silver ingestion MIGHT cause some of the problems suggested above. Or they are based on the equally unproven theory that ingesting colloidal silver can produce the same symptoms as 'Metal Fume Fever', a condition caused by inhaling lungfulls of metal fumes - usually while welding galvanized iron.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.18.203 (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I also changed the statement that said "Death from argyria has been reported..etc). This statement is just plain wrong. Argyria is just a symptom. Its simply the coloration of skin or other tissue. Argyria has never killed anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.18.203 (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)