Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

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 - 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

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." 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 [1] 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

quackwatch site

is there any consensus that this source can be used in this encyclopedia and its ok per medrs? I have difficult time to imagine britannica would get its information from there and consider it a reliable source. Or any other encyclopedia. Ryanspir (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes this source has been deemed to be suitable for covering alt med.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and yes it's appropriate to use as it is being used here with attribution. Zad68 17:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this is appropriate reliable source, and I have restored it despite a new editor repeatedly removing it until we can come to a consensus that it is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. You are already defaming me. I haven't 'repeatedly' removed it. I removed it once, then undid your undo because you provided no valid reason for undoing my edit. Anyway, can you point me to where Quackwatch has been established as a reliable source? The inclusion of this item seems little more than cherry picking of a juicy headline. There's plenty of warnings about risk and adverse effects throughout the article without needing to include this one. If Barrett has anything new or different to add to the topic then add that, but to just chuck in Barretts headline seems rather gratuitous. Blakebeau (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. Quackwatch is RS. Amazing! His colloidal silver article is full of holes but there you go.Blakebeau (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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 [2]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Silver colloids, ions, ingestion and antibacterial properties

I'm moving this conversation from my User Talk page to here, I hope Blakebeau does not mind:

Hello Zad. Regarding the edit warring warning you sent me concerning removing the text "Silver preparations deliver metallic silver not ions". I would very much like to get consensus on this but thats a bit hard when no-one responds or even seems to read the argument I put up on the Silver Talk page. Yesterday I placed the argument, announced my proposal to change it, waited 3 hours, heard nothing. So I changed it. This morning I see my edit was undone by Doc with no explanation other that the reference 'seems OK to him'. There was no indication on the Talk page that he had even read my argument. So I reverted his undo to get some attention paid to the argument I laid out on the Talk page.

Anyway heres my Silver Talk page argument again. It contains additional points to ones made previously. My suspicion is that the text in dispute is being used out of context, but without even an abstract to check we have know way of knowing.

"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)"

RegardsBlakebeau (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I was actually going to write up a little original research for you on how a liquid medium (like a glass of water) can contain silver ions vs. submicroscopic silver particles, and how the one with the silver ions isn't a colloid but rather a true solution, but you actually provided this link to a (non-RS as you note) really good discussion of that. There are three separate claims here we need to keep straight:

1. Whether a liquid containing submicroscopic nonionic silver particles vs. silver ions is a colloid or not
2. Whether nonionic metallic silver particles vs. silver ions have antimicrobial activity
3. What happens in the human body when nonionic metallic silver particles vs. silver ions are ingested

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, before we start reading sources, that most everyone here will agree that for 1) by definition, if it's submicroscopic nonionic silver particles it's a colloid and if it's silver ions it's a solution, and they're not the same thing. I'm going to go further and say that most everyone here will agree that for 2) silver ions have antimicrobial properties, at least externally, and we have sources to support that, for example this. For 3) I'm not sure about it, but what purestcolloids.com writes about silver ions combining with the chloride in the human stomach to form a silver salt makes sense to me.

So to the article, which states: "Colloidal silver preparations primarily deliver inactive metallic silver, rather than the active microbicidal silver ion." sourced to PMID 17538258 in journal Advanced Skin Wound Care with quote "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." in section "Alternative medicine". This section clearly discusses "colloidal silver" as a dietary supplement so we're talking about ingesting it and not applying it topically. This section addresses point 1) where it says "The commercial product referred to as 'colloidal silver' includes solutions that contain various concentrations of ionic silver compounds" so the real-world misapplication of "colloidal silver" to what are actually silver solutions is mentioned, although this misnomer could be made more clear.

Our article continues, "Colloidal silver preparations primarily deliver inactive metallic silver, rather than the active microbicidal silver ion." - here there are two claims: First, colloidal silver preparations primarily deliver (or at least 'true' colloidal silver ones do, not mislabeled ionic soutions) inactive metallic silver, which based on the above discussion shouldn't be controversial. Second, silver ion is microbicidal, and we have sources to support this for external use.

Blakebeau, finally driving to your point: It is possible that we need to clarify here to that the contested sentence is really talking about true colloidal silver. I understand that it is claimed that commercial/home prep "colloidal silver" products aren't really colloidal silver, but we don't have reliable source to back this up. The other issue is that although the claims in that last sentence you're questioning are supported, it's the context that's confusing: The source article is from the journal Advanced Skin Wound Care which would make us think it's talking about external application, and this is in a section about ingested use. The only issue is whether ingesting a microbicidal ionic silver solution would negate its antimicrobial properties in vivo, and I don't have a direct source for this, but I'd say - based on what I read at NCCAM and Quackwatch and others that state that ingesting what's popularly called "colloidal silver" provides no health benefit - yes, that's probably true.

So what we need for additional clarity are: 1) a reliable source stating that most commercial/home prep "colloidal silver" products aren't really colloidal silver but are rather ionic silver solution, and 2) something explicitly stating that ingesting ionic silver solution will negate its antimicrobial properties. In the meantime, as discussed above, the statement is well-sourced and should not be removed. Also, if someone can access the full Advanced Skin Wound Care article, that would really help us to be able to contextualize the information. Zad68 04:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Blakebeau and I have been having a conversation further up on this page about this topic. It would be really nice if we had a reference making sense of the term "colloidal silver". My sense is that colloidal silver does not mean anything at this point except as a marketing term. I agree with Blakebeau that we need to see the reference in question to validate that it is reliable and appropriate. Given that it appears as though Ag nanoparticles (which is well-defined) do not kill bacteria by themselves, but by the release of Ag ions based on the particle size, shape, and structure, it is important that we figure this out. This all gets more complicated upon ingestion when you would have silver metal in a highly acidic Cl containing broth which would result in the formation of insoluble silver chloride which would release Ag and Cl ions based on ksp. If nobody can come up with the reference in question, I would remove the claim.Desoto10 (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This paper http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103316q provides some insight into the problem with what is in "colloidal silver".Desoto10 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Zad, You've covered it well. Heres my comments regarding your points above...

1. Home-made/commercial colloidal silver (pertaining to alternative medicine) is not actually colloidal at all. Yes, I think most people who have any knowledge of this subject will agree with this. Its largely an ionic solution. But I don't think you'll find any RS sources for this because its always generally been assumed to be so obvious that no-one has had any need to go out and prove it. (Ironically one of the great criticisms of home made colloidal silver has been that it is ineffective because its 'only' ionic!) 2. Does ingesting silver ions negate their properties? Frankly, no-one knows. There have been lots of theories but there have been no RS clinical trials AT ALL that prove that ingested colloidal silver either works or does not work. (Thats why the NCCAM doesnt actually say its been 'proven to be ineffective'. They simply say it hasn't been scientifically proven to be effective. Big difference!) 3. Anyway, what does it matter what happens following ingestion? What we are discussing here is the implication that commercial/home made colloidal silver 'delivers inactive metallic silver'. To me 'delivery' in this section simply means what's 'in' the bottle, not what happens in the body.

The statement should be removed until much more is known about its context within the source.Blakebeau (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If we are talking about ingestion of silver then all that matters is what happens after you ingest it. What is in the bottle is interesting, but not nearly as important as what the ingestion delivers to the target. I caution anyone to be careful with phrases such as "common knowledge", "everybody knows this", "it is obvious" or "it is in every elementary textbook" because, in the land of Wiki, they are of absolutely no use. You either have a reliable source for something, or you have nothing.Desoto10 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Desoto. No-one knows what happens following ingestion of silver ions OR metallic silver. The statement in dispute implies that we DO know, when in fact there have been no RS clinical trials for ingestion. If such trials existed I'm sure they would have appeared very prominently elsewhere in this article by now.Blakebeau (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now read the article in full ("So what if you are Blue"). The article is, indeed, about wound dressings, but in the introduction the authors make the quote about CS that we have in the article. They do not reference the statement, and there is no information in the article to back it up. In addition, the article is really a case report and is labeled as such by the journal. My opinion is that this is a very very weak source, the quotation is in the Introduction section, the article is a primary source (Case Study), and the first author is a medical student (not that there is anything wrong with that) and the citation lists only 18 sources. Given these reservations, I suggest that we delete the quote and reference.Desoto10 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow Desoto, thank you for the detail. I'm pretty amazed by that. I think this is case study itself on the use of 'RS' references.

Anyway, I think we have consensus to remove the statement. I'll do it now.Blakebeau (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that two people make a consensus... I am hoping that the rest of the crew chimes in one way or the other.Desoto10 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Only 2! I thought we had 3. Sorry Zad.Blakebeau (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Great job Desoto in locating and analyzing the source, you provide a convincing analysis, the source is insufficient and the content should come out as Blake already did. However I think we can probably source a similar statement from some other, genuinely reliable source. It may have been a bit premature for Blake to remove it as soon as he did but no harm done. Great job folks, this is how consensus-building should be done, let's do more of the same going forward. Zad68 01:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Another example

Colloidal silver is a 'folks name' for Silver nanoparticles which is more scientific. They mean however exactly the same thing.

Lets say we have two articles.

1. Medical uses of antibiotics.

2. Ciprofloxacin article.

To where Cipromax (which is a brand name of ciprofloxacin) will we redirect? Ryanspir (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Colloids and nanoparticles are not the same thing.©Geni 07:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please support your argument? You are saying Colloidal Silver and Silver Nanoparticles are not the same thing, right? I have provided research papers in the section above to back up my argument. Can you please provide links which will support your argument? Ryanspir (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am far from an expert, but as far as I can tell - if I am wrong, please correct me, colloidal silver is a particular preparation of silver nanoparticles, i.e colloidal silver is silver nanoparticles, but silver nanoparticles are not colloidal silver - so they are not the same thing. If that's correct, then I think it would be misleading to simply redirect colloidal silver to silver nanoparticles.

But, the relevant section of this article doesn't say what colloidal silver is, so it's perhaps not an ideal redirect (IMO).

I assume it's agreed that colloidal silver is not notable enough to have an article there rather than a redirect, but have we considered whether it's notable enough - I'm not saying it necessarily is; I don't know - to have a brief section in the silver nanoparticles article, saying what it is, perhaps with a link back here? If so, perhaps we could agree on a redirect to that section of that article? CarrieVS (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not all Colloids are nano-particles and not all nano-particles form colloids. Colloids are non-dissolved particles in suspension (that tend not to settle). I have never heard of milk or mud being described as containing nano-particles of fat/dirt. I would go further and say that "nanoparticle" is a buzz-term. You get a lot more funding for nano-technology these days83.70.170.48 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC) 83.70.170.48 (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Could all participants kindly provide links which would support their arguments? I have provided mine in the section above. Ryanspir (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP is saying something useful here. I do get the impression that the nanoparticles term is more of a rebranding exercise than anything that mirrors common usage. WP shouldn't be playing that game (OTOH if common usage changes, then WP will follow) ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As previously stated try putting together a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP and Alex are on the right track. My general impression is that "colloidal silver" can refer to colloids of silver larger than those being 1 to 100 nanometers in size (as that was how the silver nanoparticles page defined it last time I checked). Does any reliable source offer a strict definition of colloidal silver that restricts it to being in the range of nanometers? Biosthmors (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would I need to provide links. If you are asserting that something is more scientific I can only assume you have an understanding of the basic science involved and its not as if the difference between the two is anything like cutting edge. Colloids involve interaction between a medium and a dispersed phase. Nanoparticles are simply small particles that don't need to be interacting with any separate medium.©Geni 20:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems I was indeed wrong. Ryanspir, your links all talk about "colloidal silver nanoparticles". I believe that means 'colloidal silver that is nanoparticles', and doesn't actually imply that colloidal silver is always nanoparticles. Can you quote a part of any of those sources where it does say that they are the same thing? If not, they aren't sources for that statement. CarrieVS (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe you have said it :). 'colloidal silver that is nanoparticles'. And btw, if not always, what would colloidal silver contain? About the size it's 1 to 1000 nanometers. Bigger would be called micro, smaller would be called pico. Kindly refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-.

There is also something which is called Mesosilver which is 0.65 nm or less. But it's listed on the commercial site of the manufacturer and there are no scientific studies about that I have seen. Technically they could be a new entry into a new category called silver picoparticles, if what they say is true. However they would still fall in broader term of "colloidal silver" and in a precise scientific term "colloidal silver" if they would be dispersed in (water). Ryanspir (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, colloidal silver would always contain silver particles, but as you rightly say, they wouldn't always be nanoparticles, unless they happened to be in that size range. But I am not the best person to ask. The editors who usually work on this topic are much more knowledgable about it than me. CarrieVS (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Colloidal silver - definition

Between Silver nanoparticles and Colloidal silver there is actually a very slight difference, its as much as between ciprofloxacin and CIPROFLOXACIN HYDROCHLORIDE. Which is practically the same. Using scientific language we may use the second term, while in common practice we would use the first term. Colloidal silver is silver nanoparticles dissolved permanently in the water. Water is obviously inactive. Sometimes publications use more scientific term "agnp". Example is this link: http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB72129214.htm. And this www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22958173. "AG" stands for silver, "np" stands for nanoparticles.

Colloidal silver has two slightly different meaning:

1) The broad term. Under this term are included ionic silver, metallic silver, nanosilver, agnp, silver nanoparticles and silver aquasols. 2) The scientific term which means silver microscopically dispersed evenly (usually in water). I'm referring here to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloid which says: "A colloid is a substance microscopically dispersed evenly throughout another substance.[1]". It's sourced to ^ "Colloid". Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved 31 August 2009.. Would the editors agree upon this definition? Ryanspir (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We need some secondary sources to provide some context. "Colloidal Silver" is now a term used by various vendors for a variety of products. Each of those vendors claims that their colloidal silver is better than the competition's. A scientific definition of a colloid does not provide much background, but should probably be included. Silver nanoparticles is pretty well defined as particles of metallic silver between ~10-100nm in diameter, although even this is not consistent, as some claim that AgO coated silver particles are also "silver nanoparticles". A good review would be very useful. I see no evidence that colloidal silver = silver nanoparticles and contend that colloidal silver is now a marketing term. However, that is all OR. Desoto10 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I thought that "silver nanoparticles" was the marketing term. Nano-anything sounds so much more modern! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

silver particles

Thats why the scientists are using this term. :) they like to disengage from the term cs because its perceived as controversial. Some companies are also doing the same, like mesosilver. Silver nanoparticles are silver nanoparticles. :) whether dissolved in water, coated with something, advertised by commercial companies or used in scientific journals. Ryanspir (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Reports reference in Alternative medicine.

"Consumer Reports lists colloidal silver as a "supplement to avoid", describing it as "likely unsafe".[46]"

I'm concerned about the use of this reference for a number or reasons. 1. Consumer Reports is clearly not an obvious source for authoritative medical information. Does it really pass the Wikipedia tests for an RS medical source? 2. The words 'supplements to avoid' comes from the headline which covers 11 other supplements. To some extent this seems to be 'guilt by association'. 3. "Likely unsafe" seems to go a step further than warnings from RS sources such as the NCCAM who only use terms such as 'not proven to be safe'. Any comments? Blakebeau (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Reports is not a medical source, but it is clearly a reputable, reliable source with a well-established commitment to consumer safety. That's the context in which it's cited. Moreover, its conclusions dovetail completely with those of reliable medical sources. I don't quite grasp your concern about "guilt by association"; the page lists "supplements to avoid", and one of them is colloidal silver. I don't see the ambiguity you're describing. And "likely unsafe" is actually quite a bit weaker than NCCAM, which states in no uncertain terms that colloidal silver has serious risks and no beneficial effects. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Consumer reports is a good source for supporting main stream opinion on this stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that terms such as 'can cause' 'might cause' or 'can have serious side effects' is not the same as saying its 'likely' to be unsafe. Its indisputable that you 'might' or 'can' have a crash while driving a car but road safety authorities don't say 'You are likely to have a crash today'. Regarding 'Guilt by association'. It was probably a poor choice of words. I'm simply concerned that a general headline is specifically applied to a single product. Blakebeau (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that Consumer Reports is a reliable source for consumer products, which includes nutritional supplements such as the ingestible colloidal silver products that we are talking about here. Can anyone offer any reliable quality sources (that are not associated with a cs vendor) that claim with compelling clinical evidence that ingestible colloidal silver is effective for a particular disease?Desoto10 (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I also added a 2009 FDA Consumer Advisory about cs. I forgot to put in the summary line, sorry.Desoto10 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Desoto. Orally ingested colloidal silver has never been the subject of any clinical trials, so there is no evidence that its safe or unsafe, effective or ineffective. The research and evidence simply does not exist, so you won't find me trying to insert material that suggests it is safe to cure anything. On the other hand I think its fair to be leery of any edits that suggest colloidal silver has been 'proven' to be unsafe. Even the FDA and NCCAM stop short of saying they have 'proof' of its efficacy or safety or otherwise. I contend that the statement 'likely to be unsafe' implies a degree of evidence that simply does not exist. I've never seen that statement used anywhere but on this 'Consumer Reports' reference. My question then is "Is Consumer Reports really qualified to come to a conclusion that more established medical sources have not?" If Consumer Reports have proof that colloidal silver is 'likely to be unsafe' where is it?Blakebeau (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this article is pertinent (to this topic, and generally to this article). Unfortunately I don't have access. Anybody able to have a look? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Blakebeau, your final two questions are based on a false dichotomy. Both established medical sources and Consumer Reports view colloidal silver as ineffective and potentially dangerous. I think you're also fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of safety, as it applies to medications. Safety is a relative concept which encapsulates the balance between a drug's benefits and its risks. If a substance (like colloidal silver) has absolutely no known medical benefits, then any degree of risk renders it "unsafe". You're applying an unreasonable and unscientific standard here, and I'd prefer we simply defer to the numerous reliable medical and consumer-safety sources rather than try to editorially undermine or soften them.

Desoto, I'm able to view the article you linked. It dates from 1997 and outlines a number of what are perceived as modern-day versions of snake oil, from chromium picolinate and cyclic AMP to emu oil and colloidal silver. The focus is on the misleading or dishonest ways in which these substances are marketed to the public via the Internet. I'll think about whether there's anything in the source that would be directly relevant/useful for this article; I think we've already covered the fact that colloidal silver is often promoted in a highly dubious fashion. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nutritional supplements are not drugs, but are OTC consumer products, like baby cribs, cars, cleaners, etc. Consumer Reports is likely the most widely cited source for the quality and/or safety for these products. Their opinion should carry significant weight and we should report it.Desoto10 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The 'Alternative Medicine' section is now nothing but warnings. The desire seems to be to create the most dire article possible, now even allowing the inclusion of a term that suggests that there's more than a 50% chance you'll suffer serious side effects. (At least that's how I interpret it.) I don't think even the previously acceptable RS medical sources go quite that far. But thats it. I've said my bit.Blakebeau (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As it should be. If there is no evidence that ingesting silver is safe or effective, and the primary scientific (NIH)and drug regulatory (FDA) agencies have issued warnings about ingesting silver, then that is what we should report. Anything else would be misleading.Desoto10 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

They didn't issue as much warnings for ingesting silver, but rather seconded that currently there is no enough evidence to support it's ingestion. I think Blakebeau is right in that specific point. Also I think the Alternative medicine section should rather outline (or as addition to warnings, include) the various uses of cs in the field of alternative medicine. Ryanspir (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just let us know when the clinical trials are published and reviewed and then we can include those indications in the article.Desoto10 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is the essence of a substance to be branded "Alternative medicine" for there are no sufficient clinical trials took place. Very commonly it's not because it's not effective, but rather for rather pragmatic reasons: money and lack of patent-ability. If enough sufficient trials took place that would result in regulating authorities approving the substance, so it wouldn't be considered "alternative medicine" anymore, would it? When I'm talking about money, it's about 100 million which are required to get a drug approved by FDA. So, lets assume for a moment that cs is really effective for some indications. Who is going to pay 100 million to get it approved, considering they won't be able to recover this money? Ryanspir (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)