Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive 4

Original research promotion
The article currently uses a few studies which purport to see a certain effect on bacteria with a certain silver discharge. However, there is nothing to indicate that the authors of these studies are supporting the claims of colloidal silver as marketed by alt med outfits. To that end, I recommend removing the clause about these studies from the lead entirely. The only study which actually looks at colloidal silver in the way it is marketed in alt med situations is reference 5. Per WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:ASTONISH, I think it is clear that this is the way we need to present information on this particular topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I boldly this relatively-unimportant material from the lead. Eubulides (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the change as this is total semantics once again to remove anything positive and leave the negative. The botswana test is a one off, and IT should be removed. Removing the rest of the about 11 sources that claim an antibacterial effect is the biggest fucking piece of point of view pushing I've seen on this website. The test need not indicate that they support colloidal silver as an alternative medicine, as they are testing whether it has an antibacterial effect. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal, read the bloody talk page before you revert. This is vandalism and advocacy (of your POV) on your parts, and I will take it to ANI if it continues. The sentence that those references are the sources to do not claim that those tests approve the use of colloidal silver as an alternative medicine... And really why do they need to? Its two completely separate ideas. Better yet, where's the original research part of this claim? From NPOV Noticeboard: "The studies which purport to show anti-bacterial effect do not conclude that the use of colloidal silver as marketed by alt med outlets is justified." Of course they don't, because its not what they discuss. They conclude the anti-bacterial effect!!! The marketing of the product with those effects does not change the effects! -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never had pov on my parts before! I don't see the discussion on NPOVN or here favouring your version, and it looks to me like misusing the studies to support an alt therapy. Perhaps they can be included with different framing and in the article body. And why the need for swearing? Verbal chat  17:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I can get worked up over the fact that it seems like editors who push a specific point of view (And yes, I know I am one of those too) will gang up to get their way rather that diving down to the logic of the situation. Those studies are not used to advocate colloidal silver as it is used today as an alternative medicine. They are used to back up the historical application, which like it or not, colloidal silver was used as an early anti-biotic, and the external use of it is very much proven by multiple reliable sources. I hardly see how the Botswana test is more reliable than the 11 (At least 5, as many as 11, I can't read all the full articles) sources that say that it is indeed a topical anti-bacterial. Why the struggle to remove this well sourced information besides to paint a negative picture (In fact, you remove the information, but the sources which still make those claims are used elsewhere in the article)? At the VERY least, the status quo should remain and this discussed for more than 12 hours. Given what it was used for, the historical applications are far more important than its use as an alternative medicine. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect example of how a few well meaning wikipedians can wipe out entire sections of world history or any understanding of it.. Even before it gets to mediation, discussion etc. Abd the whole POV accusation / blame game is useless. If you or I put something into, say a historical article, then yes of course it is because we think it should be there and _want_ it in there, but how in the world does it disqualify the entry in itself? There _must_ be a cohesive emphasis, throughout wikipedia, on _other_ and _better_ arguments than "it's just your POV", "no, no its your POV to keep it out" on wikipedia. Nunamiut (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

proposal to end the constant reverting caused by the conflicting interpretation of "colloidal silver"
This article is not just about the scientific term "colloidal silver", but for the most part, is about the products sold on the current market as "colloidal silver". Most of the solutions on the market, and most of the directions for making colloidal silver involve water, silver anodes/cathodes and electricy -i.e., the solutions are made with electrolysis that produces solutions with silver ions. It is appropriate to bring into the article research articles about the effect of silver ions. Even some of this research talks about making the solutions they test with using electrolysis, water and silver. Here is one from the Applied and Environmental Microbiology, November 2005 issue Bactericidal Actions of a Silver Ion Solution on Escherichia coli, Studied by Energy-Filtering Transmission Electron Microscopy and Proteomic Analysis. Here is a quote of how they created the solution they used in this research:
 * The silver ion is known to have antimicrobial effects, and it is increasingly utilized in electric appliances, such as washing machines. Many papers have been published on its effects, and early authors hypothesized that the silver ion primarily affects the function of membrane-bound enzymes, such as those in the respiratory chain, through binding to thiol groups (1, 4, 7). However, proteomic insight into the detailed mechanism is stilllacking. In this paper, bactericidal actions of a silver ion solution on Escherichia coli as a model microorganism was studied using energy-filtering transmission electron microscopy (EFTEM), two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE), and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). Experimental details are as follows. 'An aqueous solution with a silver ion concentration of 900 ppb was electrolytically prepared by applying a current of 12.5 mA for 28 s between two silver plate electrodes installed in water.' The residual chlorine content in water was less than 0.2 mg/liter. The silver ion concentration in the obtained solution was measured with a Hitachi Z-5010 polarized Zeeman atomic absorption spectrophotometer. :As a reference, a 0-ppb solution was also prepared, without electrolysis.

If we are going to include all these references about colloidal silver as it is currently marketed, then it is appropriate to talk about ionic solutions. To selectively include any negative reference about colloidal silver, then when something is added pertaining to the properties of silver ions, to say "colloidal silver" is not ionic, is not about silver ions, is contradictory. If there is a problem with talking about silver ions in this article because the title is "colloidal silver", and the editors that continually revert any reference to ionic silver feel that only the technical definition of colloidal silver should apply to any reference used in this article, then let's create a separate article, ionic silver solutions, or alternative colloidal silver, and talk about the the history of colloidal silver solutions and current alternative colloidal silver products on the market in that article, and state that even though they are for the most part marketed as "colloidal silver", they are really a range of solutions going from ionic solutions created basically with water and silver and electrolysis, and solutions with other substances added (like salt) to create different solutions (usually to create higher ppm) to other methods used to create mostly true colloidal silver solutions. But I think this selective cherry picking of reasons for reverts.. one minute every reference about adverse results caused by alternative colloidal silver products is a-ok, but any reference about silver ions is not ok because "colloidal silver" is not ionic silver, is cherry picking references and editing to perpetuate a POV. So.. shall we split this into 2 articles? One for describing only silver solutions that are stricty "colloidal silver", and another for describing alternative colloidal-ionic silver solutions? stmrlbs | talk 19:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the article should be split. Having an article on colloidal silver as a product and medicine is the only article that should exist. There is no colloidal iron page, so too should be the case for silver as a colloid. This article is about the medicinal product Colloidal Silver, and each and every variant thereof including ionic. I'm also going to seek some outside input on how the NCCAM ref is used to weaselly word the intro to say that, essentially, studies have been conducted but no evidence found (incorrect) as opposed to no studies have been done and therefore there is no evidence as of yet (correct). I don't give two shits about the scientific method is, because this is not a scientific journal, its an encyclopedia that should inform the general public to the realities. Enough POV on this article, its got to go. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Either split, separate the "commercial" rigidly and distinctly from the chemical, or simply rename it as "Silver in medical use" or some such as a more general topic. I prefer the third option. Seems the alt med colloidal silver has little to nothing to do with silver colloids. And, yes the "POV" stuff (esp. that by alt. med promoters) needs to stop. Vsmith (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, the other side of the argument is just as guilty, as innocent as they all back up each other to be. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the bulk of this article is about the medicinal use of colloidal silver, and the use of commercial colloidal silver products, I think a solution to this would be to create another article, "Colloidal silver (chemical)", a pointer to that page from here, or a disambiguation page for Colloidal Silver with links to both articles on Colloidal silver, with an explantion for both. Any problem with that?  stmrlbs | talk  01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see splitting the article if we were overwhelmed with quality sources and so much well-sourced material. But that's not the case. We barely have enough usable sources to construct one decent article summarizing colloidal silver, so I can't support splitting it. All of the relevant aspects can be summarized in different sections of a single article. MastCell Talk 04:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a sanity check, if I visit Google Scholar and query for "colloidal silver", asking for sources published in the past 5 years, then 2 of the first 20 sources are about medicinal uses of colloidal silver (both are about argyria after someone took colloidal silver). This is an indication that, although the current article should indeed cover medicinal uses, it should cover the non-medicinal uses more than it does. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is plenty there for an article on the purely chemical (and therefore non-ionic) colloidal silver.  Then this article should be about what alternative medicine calls colloidal silver.  That will eliminate the constant bickering about whether the article is about the chemical definition of colloidal silver or the general definition of colloidal silver as it was used in the history of medicine and as it is marketed and used now in alternative medicine. stmrlbs | talk  01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the Google Scholar sanity check implies that the article should be split. If anything, it implies the reverse. Eubulides (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Or the article should just have a section on the chemical and a section on the alternative medicine. The chemical section will explain that it has a stricter definition of colloidal silver. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pursuant to how to convey the level of evidence for the modern uses of colloidal silver in a medical setting: Topical silver for treating infected wounds at Cochrane is inconclusive, and a similar protocol could find no matching studies (this reference should be checked for relevance to colloidal silver before use). While it is really cool to see surface-enhanced Raman scattering seeing some uptake in the bioresearch community, a search of PubMed basically agrees with Eubulides' quick check above. I did find Silver in health care: antimicrobial effects and safety in use (2006) (currently ref 29), which appears to be mostly about Ag+, but mentions colloidal silver; and Silver products for medical indications: risk-benefit assessment (1996), which is currently ref 14 but looks to be useful for a great deal more non-dated material.

It would therefore be inappropriate, per WP:MEDASSESS and WP:FRINGE, to report the current medical use of colloidal silver, especially orally or nasally administered, as well-accepted.

There is also some use of in textiles, which we appear not to mention at the moment. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2/0, I don't think anyone is going to argue that colloidal silver is "well-accepted" by the current medical establishment. Colloidal silver fell out of favor once antibiotics were discovered.  It is obvious why they fell out of favor - antibiotics acted fast, there weren't the problems in the past that they have now  with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.  They were cheap, with few side effects, and powerful.  But, before antibiotics, colloidal silver solutions were used by doctors - mainly for antibacterial purposes, and this is what a lot of the current alternative use is based on.  And it was used with success - much as some people would have you believe that all medicine before our current modern medicines only worked because of the placebo effect.  <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  04:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Can we please discuss changes here and not in the edit history? Full protection is so much less productive than simple cooperation (treat this like a page protection; no endorsement, just trying to spur discussion). Master of Puppets 17:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats all I'm trying to do. After dealing with this on several different unrelated topics in the last couple weeks (each time in the end it was decided I was in the right), I have found myself getting annoyed rather quickly at editors reverting and not persuing further communication at my implore. This was discussed zilch and immediately implemented, and that alone warrants holding it off until further discussion commences. There are far more editors that are closely knit on the anti-everything-to-do-with-non-allotropic-medicine side of the arguments that take place at many articles that deal with natural or alternative medicine therapies, and whether by intention or not (I can assume good faith y'know) tend to assist one another feeling that they share the same greater goal of... goodness, for the encyclopedia. Because of this, their sway can quickly overwhelm the limited and sparse editors who are not single purpose accounts, and who are rationable and reasonable (though maybe at times emotional in their language). I only ask for further inquiry into this, beyond what happened in the amount of time that I was asleep last night. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So will you self revert? You are not supported here or at NPOVN. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the discussion at NPOVN was going somewhere, so why not pursue it there? I'm sure that you guys can reach a consensus. Master of Puppets  18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not supported here because there are two editors that would actually discuss my side of the argument and offer some support (though WP:NOTAVOTE applies to both sides of this argument), one of them hasn't responded yet, and the other is blocked. I will not continue to revert, but I feel its an abuse of power (or something) to have the changed version instated before there is proper discussion around it and proper consensus achieved. There is discussion going on, but very little of it by outside editors (And I do know you participate at Homeopathy discussions), and very little of it verified in my opinion. Leave the status quo until some equally weighed discussion has taken place.


 * I am open to consensus building, but this is so very clearly a way of selectively removing the information that isn't outright negative (and thus POV given the sources regarding this piece of information), and very little conversation has taken place yet, let alone consensus building.


 * As for the second item I reverted (Which has not been discussed what so ever), if you look closely that source still backs up "colloidal silver was used as a germicide and disinfectant.", just not the date of when it was used until. Surely you can agree on this at least? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not object to you doing a partial revert that leaves the date fix (unless others object), while removing the unjustified content from the lead.
 * Again, not enough discussion or parties have taken place in this short time to determine the consensus. There has been no counter to the arguments I've made, just "Nope I agree with the guy that posted before you" (by several editors, I am not pointing the finger at you Verbal). If an uninvolved editor to the topic (or its closely related topics) reverts it, then I will not continue to revert it. I am hoping that an involved editor will do the right thing, and hold off reverting until this clears up. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was an uninvolved editor, and came here because of your NPOVN report. Seems to me you should look at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, and are stalling to keep your preferred version against the views of multiple other editors. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What point am I not getting, besides a bad and terribly presented one? Read IDIDN'THEARTHAT, the next paragraph. If anything, I would like to press your accusation on the other editors vying for this change, as next to no answers or counters have been made to my completely logical arguments, and now it seems like you are grabbing at straws rather than directly addressing the arguments and the point. Your edit history clearly shows you are very involved in topics related to alternative medicine. Just because you haven't made comments on this particular obscure article doesn't mean that you are uninvolved. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of editors here, Verbal, Eubulides, ScienceApologist, who have never contributed to the article in the past, and who now are just coming by to revert sourced statements, with general statements like NPOV, and no comments here, except to threaten Floydian who is a contributing editor. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 05:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please retract your misleading comments and personal attack on other editors. Only one editor has verbally assaulted others in this dispute, and he is not on your list. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously some editors have a soft spot for swear words. Fyi, its not a personal attack when its not directed at you. Stop crying foul. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There appear to be some WP:OWN issues here. I'll lend a hand trying to get article under control of consensus view. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The ownership issues seem to effect everyone on this topic. Please look closely before only reverting my edits blindly, as all you did was reintroduce information thats already mentioned in the article word for word twice (Not to mention the clear breaking of WP:NPOV given the sources). Please read the lead and not just who the last editor who edited it was, as it currently summarizes the article while leaving the points that are being argued (And there is no consensus, please look closely) in the appropriate section. This is now clearly an attempt to push that little piece of information in the lead to quickly downplay the substance (Which is the only goal of many of the editors here, not creating a well informed and neutral article). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that both sides believe that they are trying to create a well informed and neutral article. I suspect that Verbal et. al. believe that a well informed article would make the lack of effectiveness and potential dangers of ingesting this material clear, while you appear to believe that a well informed and neutral article would show all of the potential benefits of eating silver. I suggest that everyone attempt to hew as closely to sources as possible - you, for instance, recently made the lead read that there are no experiments on the effectiveness of silver for various things. That's patently untrue, and no source has written that. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? Then show me one study that disproves its in vivo effectiveness (no reviews, I want a study). I wish you good luck, you'll be searching for a while. I am attempting to show the verifiable truth, and they are attempting to misrepresent the substance which has no dangerous side effects (argyria is cosmetic and the result of blatent misuse, in the same line that excessive acetaminophen ingestion causes liver damage, coma, and death. But is that in the lead at Tylenol? No! Even though tylenol has so many dangers that it has a separate article for them). Again, this is clearly a kabal (Yes, I said it again, because you are all working together as a group and rarely presenting independent arguments) attempt to paint alternative medicines as a clear sham, yet make pharmaceuticals seem like a heaven-sent, even when several studies indicate the opposite, and society is increasingly becoming aware of the slap-a-bandaid-on-it allotropic healthcare system we have. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would personally be more concerned about noting in the lede of an article the health risks of swallowing quantities of palladium or cadmium than those of swallowing Tylenol too... and I won't take Tylenol. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reviews are Reliable Sources. I suggest that they believe they are attempting to show the verifiable truth, and you are attempting to misrepresnet the substance which they believe has no positive effects. I decline to discuss the article on Tylenol - OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Finally, if you cannot stop using antisemtic phrases (kabal/cabal are not acceptable terms), then I will cease discussions with you. Hipocrite (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Palladium and Cadmium. The latter is well established as a poisonous substance. Silver is not poisonous (Though some salts of it are, colloidal silver does not contain silver salts.). Neither of the two you mentioned are commonplace in medicine. If a more poisonous substance that is pushed on people doesn't include it in the lead, then why does this article absolutely have to?

Reviews can be reliable, but what studies does the review cite? Surely it can't be that hard to find where NCCAM gets their information from... Or are they reliable and verifiable? I am bringing up tylenol because it is in the same subject matter and it clearly shows the pushing of bias confined to this article. Cabal is not an antisemetic term, it means a group of people that are (often, secretly) organized and push for the same views. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not further discuss this with you until such time as you cease using anti-semitic terms. Sorry! Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite - Floydian is probably referencing WP:CABAL with his comments and not intending to say anything anti-semetic. Inappropriate, violating WP:AGF and incorrect (as there is no cabal) but not anti-semetic.


 * Floydian - basic science time - why did I use Palladium and Cadmium as examples? Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not know, you didn't explain. Forget basic science, basic logic: If extremely poisonous substance A and extremely poisonous substance B both do not have anything in the lead regarding their toxicity, yet have entire articles on their toxicity, then why does non-poisonous substance C, which has a paragraph on it, have it in its lead? Answer: WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.


 * Also, wrt the removal of the horticulture section with a summary of "delete section on horticulture, which was about ionic and colloidal preparations"... So what is this article about if not ionic and colloidal preparations?


 * Still waiting on a study to verify the claim by the NCCAM review btw. I'm looking deeper than "well it says it, and we've decided for the purposes of this article and our point of view that it is a reliable source and a reliable piece of information." NCCAM only selectively shows it sources, and in my eyes that is a big problem in terms of reliability. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh... they are the two elements adjascent to Silver on the periodic table. My point was that swallowing metal is generally something that one should be careful of. Especially when there is no confirmed health benefit. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very true, I agree with you on that. One should be careful of ingesting any substance, metal or not, and should do their own independent research before coming to a decision. There is no scientifically confirmed merit, but there is near limitless anecdotal evidence (and yes I'm very aware that wikipedia doesn't rely on that). We must look at both sides of the equation, however: Is there no confirmed health benefits, or are there no studies regarding its health benefits? Is there a study with the conclusion of "Colloidal silver has no effect on health or body function"? There isn't, and since there isn't, why must we word the sentence to make it seem like there has been? Surely there is no information lost, and plenty gained, by explaining it in more details. No there isn't scientific evidence supporting it, but there also isn't scientific evidence condemning it.


 * Also of note, I just read the article on National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. You should too, as there are apparently some controversies surrounding it. What particularly strikes my attention is "[NCCAM]... have neither succeeded in demonstrating the efficacy of a single alternative method nor declared any alternative medicine treatment ineffective."
 * If this is true, then why are they the source for the statement that it is ineffective? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the information provided is based, in part on the way science works. See what they do is set up a null hypothesis and set out to disprove it (n this case the null hypothesis would be "colloidal silver has no health benefit".  If they fail to disprove the null hypothesis they still can not say that they disproved the hypothesis, only that they failed to disprove the null hypothesis.  When a result of failure to disprove null hypothesis is produced it is valid to say that they have failed to demonstrate the hypothesis. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but can you even find a study that does that? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What really irks me here is that if I don't revert the page repeatedly, these authors all but disappear completely, with the notion of "Well we've got our way so there's nothing to prove". -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I made it perfectly clear why I was no longer interacting with you. Stop using anti-semitic phrases. Hipocrite (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cabal" is not anti-semitic, it refers to a group, and its a Hebrew term as well. Ffs I'm half Jewish, I would not be insulting my own ancestry... Either way, I don't see how you are making that connection seeing as I'm referring to WP:CABAL, but its your choice not to communicate. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a distinctly ugly conversation. It doesn't matter if some people are arguing about whatever - a very good point is (and was probably already made) that people are indeed ingesting this substance, and it is disturbing to see people who have taken on the responsibility of educating others, breaking down into arguments about vague possibilities. Especially when dealing with the semantics of a word like cabal (did I use the word semantics right) I think you would all do well to stop bickering, and present some of that stuff called methodology (ho bout that one? or did I just invalidate myself with a typo) the point being is, that when someone feels so strongly about an issue, they should make it easier, for others to get real data on the subject. How bout a method for testing the anecdotal evidence? Or even antiviral? How bout CS's effect as a disinfectant, in relation to that effect of bleach, a much more common and supposedly non toxic ( have seen someone drink it, straight, and do quite well after ) disinfectant. Even a link would help some people who would like to see HOW to prove something like the function of substance's introduction to the human body, or any body of water whit stuff in it... anything is better then watching people sling words arund like -semantic (that word again!)bigotry-. Desolvent (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-organise a bit - Horticulture bit?
I've re-organised the article, in part to get some of the disputed details out of the lead. No content changes made. Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a well carried out edit. I think that should settle things for now (though I notice it mentions in-vitro studies in two separate locations). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Noticed that, but didn't want to do any content changing yet. Some cleanup will be needed. Vsmith (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the horticultural use section doesn't really belong here. It is about ionic silver compounds - not colloidal, and doesn't fit under the "commercial" alt. med. definition either. Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * VSmith, the use of colloidal silver in the use of cannibus ("pot") cultivation, specifically for the feminization of seeds is very popular. In fact, they use the same method of making the colloidal silver used for this horticultural process as you see explained all over the internet - basically setting up electrolysis using silver electrodes and water - simple process. But it works on the principle that silver ions suppress ethylene production. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  04:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... wasn't aware of that. Vsmith (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the summary of alt med use in the lead, as the lead should summarise the article. I removed the in vitro studies from the alt med section, as they do not have anything to do with alt med. Until the use of these studies and their relation to colloidal silver is demonstarated, and inclusion supported here, they should remain out. When reinserted they should not go in the alt med section, nor should they be juxtaposed which leaves a misleading impression. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop your selective POV editing. The only editors who support your selective use of studies (oh yeah its just a big coincidence that only the negative studies are valid, ain't it?) are posters that have never participated here, have their own well announced point of view, or have been misrepresented as supporting your side (Steven Schulz). Discuss and stop being a weasel. The edit by VSmith was appropriate and you just HAVE to come and stir things back up.

Here's the relation: COLLOIDAL SILVER CONTAINS THE SUBSTANCE THAT THEY ARE TESTING UPON! Whats it called... Oh! Silver. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But not colloidal silver and not in alt med? Definitely WP:SYNTH to put it in that section. per WP:BURDEN please get consensus here for the contested material, and don't use all caps - it's akin to shouting, and is uncivil. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... The edit I'm vying for is the status quo, and the WP:BURDEN is upon you, and so YOU need consensus to put your contested edits in, which there is currently no consensus. I still see the usual split down both sides from the involved editors (Including those that edit other alt. medicine), and the neutral uninvolved editors take a bench seat for the most part. DHawker pointed out that Steven Schulz first sentence is "Sorry, but the well-known antibacterial effect of silver ions in vitro can in no way support any medical claims in [vivo]." (based on the sentence that follows, using a metaphor of the ingestion of alcohol, I safely assume that the last word was supposed to be vivo instead of vitro).

It does not matter if you use something intending it to be a medicine or not, it still has the exact same effect. In fact, using it AS a medicine only adds the placebo effect to complicate things. Same goes for the silver being a colloidal or not - The effects of the constituents are still there, just presented in a different form. Its akin to saying sugar is sweet, but if you mix it in water we need a new study to demonstrate that sugar IN water is sweet, since they are so very clearly two completely different substances. You are using wikilawyering to selectively cherry pick out information using the blanket statement of WP:SYNTH. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the colloidal silver on the market today, or made by people for their own use is made very simply from the electrolysis of silver anodes in water. This method produces both silver ions and silver colloids. When you have research that talks about the effect of ions produced by performing electrolysis on water and silver anodes... yes, you are talking about the same thing that people are making at home for their own use from the same process using the same materials -water and silver electrodes, whether they use it for their horticultural experiments or they use it for their own medicinal purposes. Research involving silver ions in water shows the effect that ... silver ions in water will have. Most of the research is about germicidal effects -the same effects that silver (with or without water, in various forms and mediums) has been used in for medicine for centuries. The particular research that I quoted from above only performed electrolysis for 28 seconds (with silver electrodes and water), and yet showed a germicidal effect with E. Coli. To say that this has nothing to do with colloidal silver (at least the form produced by simple electrolysis) is to say research on chili beans, chili spice, and tomatoes is not really research on the dish called chili - because no one actually called it "chili" in the research. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 03:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad analogy. It's more like this: research on chili does not automatically apply to enchiladas, even though they both contain tomatoes, cumin, and beans. Research on ionic silver compounds does not automatically apply to "colloidal silver", no matter how badly the latter term has been debased. MastCell Talk 02:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My analogy is when you have research on a solution created by running a current between 2 silver anodes in water, then you may call that solution something else, but it is exactly the same process used to create most of the colloidal silver solution out there on the market. silver electrodes, water and current.  <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  02:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The horticulture section
I removed this because it doesn't talk about colloidal silver preparations, as the text itself states. Mangoe (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article would appear to be about an alternative medicine, not an agricultural product. So concur.Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, the section wasn't about colloidal silver, by its own admission. Alt med people might be allowed to get away with this mislabelling in some places, but I saw nothing in the removed text which justified its presence in this article. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is sourced and correct information though, even if misplaced. If its deleted from here then you should likewise add it to Silver, as it would/may be relevant there. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest proposing it on the relevant article's talk page. People there might know a better place, or be able to integrate it better. You should note that it was moved from here per the GFDL license (in the edit summary and I think there is a tag too). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Locked
Alright, apparently warnings don't get read correctly, so I've locked this for a week in the hopes of some discussion occurring. First, though, let's go over some extremely basic stuff; I hope this makes sense (you can find me on my talk page if you have additional questions). For now, please try to discuss this civilly and without further conflagration. Master of Puppets 04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * edit summaries are not for discussion. They're for explaining what you're changing or giving insight into what you're doing in an edit (see Help:Edit summary if you'd like extra explanation). Therefore, please don't use them to argue back and forth while reverting.
 * edit warring accomplishes nothing. If somebody's made a contested edit that you don't agree with, discuss it. Do not revert. If they're making it in spite of an admin's warning, report it. Don't take it into your own hands to revert.
 * 3RR isn't a 'life system'. It isn't like you've got three free reverts to edit-war with without fear of punishment, so don't act like you do.


 * I really wish the original edit before the edit war began (anything prior to October 20th) was restored, so that the editors who made those contoversial changes would actually have a reason to discuss it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than locking the page it would have probably been better to block the editor who is causing the problem, having twice broken 3RR (and been reported, which is why you came), and who is refusing to engage with people who disagree with him - instead resorting to vulgar language and personal attacks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to think that at least a short term block might encourage Floydian to concentrate on editing other areas of Wikipedia. This could be good for resolving some of the WP:OWN issues I've seen with him. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for now it should stand, so long as Floydian is aware that any further outbursts or editwarring will not be tolerated, and that he has acted improperly. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And once again you avoid my points in order to personally accuse me of behaviour I haven't committed. I have yet to personally attack an editor (I have been emotional in my statements, but have never resorted to name calling or attacking as you so insist). I have broken 3RR once, and clearly in doing so I got you to actually come and comment, since everything changed on this page in the past 2 days was made by fly-by-editors that have never stepped foot on this article before. I have never claimed to own the page as you are so persistent in accusing me of, I have only said not to make changes without discussing them, which every editor has outright ignored. Stop dodging the subject, beating around the bush, and just answer my arguments if you're so confident. A simple look at my edit history will show you I edit a wide range of articles around wikipedia, and I will not stand while you try to ban me in order to avoid actually answering me. Seriously guys, FOCUS on the subject. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I own the page, but your clear lack of willingness to actually confront my arguments just shows that you have no case. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nearly every statement untrue. I have not attempted to ban you. The only two factual statements are that you have edited other articles, and I have accused you of WP:OWNership issues regarding this page. You have been warned by an admin for your personal attacks and vulgar language. Feel free to join the discussion above without questioning the motives of others, resorting to intemperate language, and by actually addressing the issues clearly and succinctly. Please engage cooperatively and realise that your view might not be correct or the consensus view. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm allowed to swear, especially since I'm clearly not name calling, and since there are no rules forbidding vulgar language (And if I'm wrong, please correct me by linking me to said rule). You are not physically going through the motions to get me banned, but I can find two instances where you have said, quote "[it would have been] better to block the editor who is causing the problem" and "He is editwarring and being abusive, and should now be blocked."
 * The funny thing is there wasn't a problem before all these new editors appeared out of the blue... So was I causing the problem or were they? Depends who you ask to be honest. Can you point out my abuse (With diffs or quotes instead of generalizations)? I have addressed the issues, you have failed to respond.


 * I was also the first editor to admit that I could be wrong and that I'd like to compromise. Can you say the same thing? Or are you just 100% certain without fail that you are correct? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to play games - you've been warned that if you continue you will be blocked. You should take that on board and stop disrupting this talk page. I plan to say no more on this. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So in other words you do not have a response to my arguments, nor to my counter-claims against your accusations, and you are admitting to being wrong, since you cannot produce a counter-argument, and so are falling back on repeating threats? Just for all those editors who missed this, here is the unwillingness of other editors to communicate, right above me. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully very last comment on this: I will discuss the article here, per WP:TALK. No more games, take this to your talk page if you like. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, in other words you have been playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and ignoring the fact that the lack of studies confirming any in vivo effect and ignoring the fact that the in vitro reference you posted was not a WP:RS has been explained at painstaking length to you. Pursuant to that people have given up on continuing a tendentuous argument with you are are pointing out that you have been warned about edit warring repeatedly and broke WP:3RR in two of the last three days. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Um... Its my questions that have been left unanswered.

Questions

 * 1) Confirm studies confirming a lack of in vivo effects. How can we claim a lack of in vivo effects if no study has concluded that? Thats WP:SYNTH. NCCAM could very well be unreliable (on top of that, its been the subject of some dispute elsewhere, including its own article), and as a review should cite all of their claims (which they do not, and only provide a 'Partial Reference List', which includes all of the studies already used in this article. Not one of them supports the claim made by NCCAM.


 * 2) They are peer reviewed and pubmed sources, they are very much a WP:RS. The question is whether WP:SYNTH applies to them as they do not "Support the use of colloidal silver as an alternative medicine", even though they do confirm the anti-bacterial effects in-vitro of Silver, ionic silver, and silver protiens (All of which even this article currently mentions can be the constituents of colloidal silver). A substance is a substance, regardless of its intended use, the ingredients are identical.


 * 3) If you look at the multiple sections above, no answers were provided at all to most of my arguments, and were often met with accusations and threats. Who is being uncivil? The person imploring for a response, or the people making accusations without any proof to back it up (except for 3RR which was broken in one 24 hour period, but is hardly an excuse to completely bypass the discussion that those reverts intended to jump-start). Just because the pro-science editors out number me and Stmrlbs, does not mean they are exempt from having to discuss controversial evidence, nor does it give them the right to prohibit the two of us from making changes without discussing when changes were already made without discussion. To this I cite WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DISPUTE.


 * From WP:CONSENSUS
 * "Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages."


 * From WP:DISPUTE
 * "[insert entire guideline here]" -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When unprotected
Can we change the first sentence to take out the word "true"? If this is an article on a form of an element then it should read like that, like a chemistry article. We need to state very firmly what colloidal silver is. If when it is used in medicine the definition is different then that has to come afterwards. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should start Chemically, Colloidal silver is a...? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any qualifier is necessary. Just "Colloidal Silver is..." As itsmejudith pointed out alternate uses of the phrase can come later. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If we can't find any non-medicinal uses for Colloidal silver to mention, perhaps we should bypass the chemical definition and just link to colloid, which explains the technicalities of a colloidal substance? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The "true" was my addition as I was attempting to clearly distinguish the meaning of "colloid" from the "commercial" alt. med. usage as either an ionic solution, a metal-protein complex or a colloidal suspension of a variety of silver compounds. And, I'll agree that "true" is not the best word choice there. Even if the article ends up containing no "non-medicinal uses", the defining statement needs to clarify this. Vsmith (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article could be unprotected right now if everyone promised not to fuck with the disputed information, or agree to allow anyone to revert any of their changes to the current version without causing an edit war. Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree to unprotection if Floydian and stmrlbs agreed to not restore the misleading in vitro studies without first demonstrating their relevance and gaining consensus here, and not to revert to his preferred version. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would only agree to unprotection if the version well before this dispute is restored so that it can be discussed before being implemented (I won't object to this version being restored, but only after actually being discussed. No accusations, no bullshit, no singling out editors and labelling them based on YOUR personal opinion, just discussed, properly, and logically.), not the backwards approach taken by many of the editors here. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your purpose, but it would be better to start off with "colloidal silver is". It is what chemists understand it to be. If old-fashioned pharmacists defined it differently or if alternative medicine practitioners define it differently, then we can explain. The fact remains that "colloid" and "silver" are precise scientific terms, and if it is worth having an article on this topic then the precise scientific terms should be up front. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Itsmejudith has a habit of being right on issues like this. People would do well to heed her. Simonm223 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Itsmejudith, this is something that that VSmith, Floydian, and I brought up previously hereTalk:Colloidal_silver, were discussing (cordially), and trying to come to a consensus with no edit warring before these other editors that had never participated before descended and started reverting. I was suggesting that perhaps a disembiguation page might be in order with a link to an article about the chemical colloidal silver, and a link to an article about the more general use colloidal silver preparations used in the past by doctors and now by alternative medicine.  Then the new editors started reverting a lot of the article with no discussion and all hell broke loose.  <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  04:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you very much Simon. I appreciate your comments too. Stmrlbs, thanks for the explanation. Yes, splitting the article could be a solution (no pun intended). Do we have consensus for it? (she asked innocently). Itsmejudith (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the proposed titles of the two articles. Thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As the article does not contain any content on non-medical or non-health related (drinking water section) other than the initial chemical definition, it seems that splitting the article isn't really a viable option. That was one reason I suggested renaming the article to something like "Silver in medical use" or "Medicinal applications of silver" or "..." Most of the published info on the medical or health applications of silver are not about silver colloids, but rather about silver nitrate, acetate or other ionic solutions (see http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10942&page=324 currently used as a ref for space station water supply); so titling the article "colloidal silver" is a misleading misnomer. Clarification of the misuse of the term colloidal silver by the alt. med. internet promotional websites would need to be addressed somehow (WP:RS for this?). The colloidal silver title could then be a redirect -or- a disambiguation page (assuming sufficient material for a colloidal silver (chemistry) or somesuch is developed. Vsmith (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Studies on various silver forms, with particular emphasis on silver solutions was done by NASA to determine what were acceptable levels of these elements and what were toxic levels. But it is the colloidal form of silver that is used to disinfect the water in space stations - although according to this article, it looks like the US uses iodine and Russia uses colloidal silver . But, these references were to show the antibacterial/germicidal uses of silver colloidal solutions.  As to whether the effect is due to the colloids or the ionic form, I think this is still being explored and is still not totally understood. As far as the historical use, yes, silver nitrate was a part of that, but if you look at the historical reference used in this article "", there is a whole chapter Preparation of Colloidal Sols which talks about electrolysis as well as chemical methods to produce "Colloidal Sols".  I do agree though that clarification of what the scientific term colloidal silver means versus the way colloidal silver is used in alternative medicine now, regardless of whether a separate article is created.  <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  02:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add a note that my family has an ancient bottle of the stuff. It's labelled as Silver Hydrosol -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to get enough decent sources to write one article. Splitting the article would dilute the already poor sourcing even further. MastCell Talk 02:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I suggest a renaming above as the current article name is rather misleading and there exists no non-med or non-health content beyond the basic definition of a colloid. If sufficient non-med or non-health related uses of silver colloids are found, then that article could be written. Vsmith (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support renaming it to Medicinal use of silver (use or usage, either or). This gets rid of having to scrutinize exactly what form of silver is being used, and allows us to create one big article, where the alternative medicine use need not be the focus, but rather the entire history of silvers use medically. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  04:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is fine with me. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  04:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That might work. How about starting an RfC on it here? -- Brangifer (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that colloidal silver would still be the major focus as it's the most common usage. Most other uses would be commented on en passant and in a historical context. The lead would need to mention that colloidal silver is the predominant use, and of course anyone who comes to Wikipedia searching for "colloidal silver" would be redirected to any new article. The redirect and the number of key words mentioning colloidal silver would still make the new article a top article in any Google search for "colloidal silver". -- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * easily taken care of either with disembiguation or with the redirect done by a move. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 02:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Argyria images.-- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * this is more appropriate for the article on argyria. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 02:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any "medicinal uses" article should include side effects. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A medicinal uses article could conform more cleanly to the section headers of WP:MEDMOS. As for images, I could take one of the bottle of the stuff (it looks like these). I think that would be an appropriate image for colloidal silver at least. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, you should really try reading the article before commenting. 20 of the 31 references talk about side effects, the main one being argyria.  the lead has something about side effects as well as there being a section on side effects with a link to the article on argyria. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  01:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:COPYVIO in mind when coming up with photographs if they include brand marks or logos. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can have a fair use rationale, its no different than having an album cover to show what a music product looks like. I'm certain there's a specific policy that is more indepth into the matter. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible useful reference
See which is a dermatological article. It has extensive discussion of toxicology and the history of FDA findings. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good source for potential side-effects to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/49/7/575#SEC2 is an Oxford publication and is far more reliable than Dermatology Online. It covers medicinal silver in general and isn't specific to only colloidal silver. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a good source, although the article is (at this point) still about colloidal silver, not "silver in medicine". And the Dermatology Online ref mentioned by Mangoe is a decent one - but then, it's been in the article for almost the past 2 years. :) MastCell Talk 18:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The oxford article still covers Colloidal silver, its just not dedicated to it, as it also explores exposure to silver in the workplace, and Argyria. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do agree it's a useful source here. MastCell Talk 18:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, me bad... Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In the NASA report they did analysis on many of the reports of side effects of silver in an effort to determine what would be a safe level in the water that the astronauts would be drinking. This analysis actually has some numbers and threshold levels which I think would be of benefit here, if this article became one on the medicinal purposes of silver, or on the article about argyria if this stays colloidal silver. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 01:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The NAP book linked way up there ^ and already used has more possibilities. Also the Quackwatch article has relevant info and good refs. Vsmith (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The NAP book is what has the NASA report - I'm talking about the same thing. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC Renaming the article
Should the article be renamed to Medicinal use of silver (use or usage), remain as Colloidal silver, or [option 3 here]?

So far there have been no objections to renaming this article as Medicinal use of silver, so as to not focus solely on the technical definition of colloidals. Would usage be more appropriate? Is another name more appropriate? Or perhaps, should the article just stay put. Thoughts? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest we try to get some more suggestions and then have an RfC on which one to choose. I like this one, but would like to see other suggestions. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to go with Medicinal use of silver. I also think the article should more clearly differentiate between using silver externally on wounds vs drinking the stuff. There is lots of evidence that drinking it does little good but potential harm, whereas there is also about a century of evidence showing that silver is very useful as an antiseptic when applied to wounds such as burns. Wdford (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brangifer. I'd like to see a few more options, and also what people think should be dropped from the renamed article, and what should be added and where. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Way up there ^ somewhere I suggested "Silver in medical use" or "Medicinal applications of silver" as possible article names. Would be happy with either - or the current suggestion "Medicinal use of silver". Seems we need to get away from the current name which focusses too much on that "commercial definition" stuff. Do a google search for "colloidal silver" and you get tons of "sales pitches" for alt med quackery. It is interesting that the current Wiki article is the first non-sponsered link followed by Quackwatch ... maybe that's a reason for keeping the current name? Vsmith (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it not stay up on the listings even as a redirect? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * yes,it probably would. Here is a google on corn (which has as the first article "maize".  <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  02:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A redirect would probably still remain at the top of a Google search, or the newly retitled article would take it's place, since the redirect page wouldn't have any other key words than "colloidal silver". The Quackwatch article might take it's place, but I doubt it. Also the shear number of key words (that are all used legitimately in the article) will help it to maintain a high position. SEO is best done without any cheating, and this is the way to do it. The lead in a retitled article would still prominently use the words "colloidal silver", so I don't foresee any problems.


 * If I am bothered at all by this matter (renaming), and I am a little bit, it is that we'd be using a neologistic phrase to replace the most common term as the title of an article that will still mostly deal with "colloidal silver". That's not right. The other aspects to mention would be small mentions. Does this bother anyone else? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose, but a lot of articles use an arbitrary phrase that describes the content of that article. The article isn't about some new lingo, the hip new term "medicinal uses of silver". There are two main reasons: 1) Silver itself has a long history of use in medicine, and 2) Commericial colloidal silver isn't colloidal silver in the scientific respect of the term. Too many editors disavow sources on the grounds that it is about ionic silver or silver proteins, even though the substance being tested is the equivalent to a commercial colloidal silver. I think it would make for a more neutral and broad article overall that's less focused on disproving a theory. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The name Medicinal uses of silver is too specific; it should be Medical uses of silver, as Medicinal use (i.e., use in medicines) is a subset of medical use (i.e., use in any aspect of medicine). For example, silver has had an important role in the development of radiology, but that is not a medicinal use. Also, Medical uses of silver is a bit shorter and easier to understand. Eubulides (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds good Eubulides. Can we safely say this is the consensus? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to support Medical uses of silver. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. <span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 19:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, I'll make the move tonight if no objections have been raised. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is one objection. I am not sure if "use as a disinfectant" always qualifies as a medical use. Zara1709 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But it can... can it not? Personally, I think the focus should be less on the semantics of what exactly the wording of the title permits, and more on being informative and comprehensive. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Made the change. I'll leave the rewording of the article to more experienced editors, as I'm sure my change would be intermediary. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New article structure
I've noticed that Stmrlbs removed the *inuse*-notice from the article diff. Well, I myself am of the opinion that none of the edits I've made to the article were any changes that would need to be discussed first. I didn't change the scope of the article in any way, and I didn't bring in any new points that weren't already mentioned in the article. I really didn't bring in any new statements, although I've supplemented a few statements with more sources. The only sources I've removed for now were concerning the statement on what colloidal silver is marketed as, diff, but those sources are only hidden, not removed completely. I could were well continue editing the article for another 2 hours, but I think a 3-hour-marathon is enough.

In case that the purpose of the new article structure isn't obvious to everyone: The idea, that colloidal silver should have some anti-bacterial effects in-vivo, too, since it has anti-bacterial effects in-vitro, can now be discussed on a separate section: Discussion based on in-vitro studies. There is actually one source on the issue (although I would have to take another look at that one), and if sources discuss this, then Wikipedia should discuss this, too. And with a (balanced) discussion in a separate section, there would be no need to get into an edit war concerning NPOV.

Also: There is no meaningful way I could have discussed these changes before I made them. I think I can justify these edits as a whole, but I don't think that it would be possible to justify every single one of it independently. I hope that the long discussion at the noticeboard has achieved some results, if not, I fear the discussion will simply continue. Zara1709 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the 'Biological Effects' section why talk about silver compounds (and mercury) from a 1920's textbook when much more recent studies are available and are cited in your 'in-vitro discussion' section? Besides, the more recent studies say its the ions not the colloids, casting some doubt on the 1920's textbook.Beaupoint (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Couple of major issues. First of all, I've removed the long disquisition about what 1920's textbooks said. We should focus on the current state of human knowledge, not the state of human knowledge 80 years ago. I've substituted a few review articles and other peer-reviewed sources from the 21st century which deal with the subject of silver's antimicrobial efficacy - I think this is much more in line with our sourcing policies (see WP:MEDRS). It's fine to discuss the historical view of silver, but it should not be left as the last word - this is frankly misleading since it ignores the current understanding that ionic silver is the active agent, and metallic (truly colloidal) preparations are inactive. The "Discussion of in-vitro studies" reads like an editorial attempt to counter the weight of available sources. I've folded the relevant info into the existing section on "Biological effects of silver", which is a more appropriate place to discuss the in vitro evidence. I've also removed the sources describing ionic silver - these not only fail to mention colloidal silver, but they make clear that the silver ion is the active component - arguing directly against the effectiveness of colloidal silver. I've also removed Chopra's article from the section - it was being frankly abused to claim that colloidal silver was making a comeback due to antibiotic resistance. In fact, it says nothing about colloidal silver - it discusses the increasing use of silver dressings which deliver ionic silver. MastCell Talk 05:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Replying to that: That colloidal silver does have ant-bacterial effects in-vitro is undisputed - just like the fact that it has dangerous side-effects when used as an internal medicine, and, at least in most cases, there are no proven positive effects. "Gonorrhea and gonorrheal conjunctivitis" could be an exception, or at least Fung & Bowen make a difference there, so I think it would be appropriate to restore one of those sentences that you removed, MastCell (diff). Actually the sentence "Inorganic silver compounds are germicidal." was a direct quote from Fung & Bowen. How germicidal is colloidal silver? Well, according to this book from 1920... I don't actually see a reason not to use it, since I did not have another source. Of course, in 1920 the side-effects of colloidal silver were, afaik, less known, but then again, it didn't use the book as reference for anything like that. Anyway, since you have access to current sources, you might want to find a statement how germicidal colloidal silver is in these and add it to the article.


 * An then we get to the interesting question that I previously had brought under the title "discussion based on in-vitro studies". If you look at the journal article Chopra (2007), that was referred in that section as " "diff, you will see 1) that it is from a reputable medical journal and 2) that it only talks about the "use of silver-based products" as an (external) treatment of "open wounds"!  Figuring 2) out took me some time, because this article was quoted completely out of context. One other article, "So what if you are blue? Oral colloidal silver and argyria are out: safe dressings are in". Adv Skin Wound Care 20 (6), appears to be pointing in the same direction, but I currently can't get access to it; but I should be able to get a separate section on the use of silver preparations in wound care started based on Chopra (2007). Zara1709 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

External and internal use of silver as medication
After another round of reading the (already present) sources, fixing citations and adding more statements, I would summarize the issue as following: External use of silver compounds as medication = good (at least sometimes) / internal use of silver-containing medication=bad (always). Previously the article didn't actually differentiate between these two uses. Since silver is germicidal, it can be used to treat infections, as long as these are on the outside of the body. I created a separate section for these uses, and brought this as subsection under the same section heading as the use of silver as disinfectant. To me, these appeared to be the most plausible solution, but since we now have this material in a separate (sub-)section, we can rearrange the sections if necessary. I can't imagine any argument against discussing the use of silver compounds as externally applied medication (in the treatment of wounds etc.) in a separate section. If there is such an argument, we would have to discuss whether my version as a whole is acceptable. (But don't do it like this anonymous ip editor and make a full revert without a discussion. On the other hand, if there are smaller errors in my work, feel free to fix them. I am no medical expert, and concerning several articles I only had the abstracts available - but on the other hand, I think that these abstracts were sufficient. Zara1709 (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All very interesting but I came here to find out something about the stuff called colloidal silver at the local health shop. Not sure I'm any the wiser.Beaupoint (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in short: If you see colloidal silver advertised as self-medication at a health shop, don't buy it. In the best case, it will have no effect, in the worst case, I might make you look like a zombie, as one doctor described the effects of silver medication from the 1930s, here. On the other hand, in some case doctors at a hospital will use silver compounds to treat infections wounds, burns or ulcers, especially if these are infected with bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Before 1960 (or 1968, I'm not sure), they would have used colloidal silver for the purpose of treating those infections, nowadays they use a stuff called silver sulfadiazine or some more advanced silver compounds. But this would not be of much concern to the average consumer.
 * As soon as the discussion on the current version has achieved some consensus, we can write a more concise lead paragraph and then the article will hopefully be more accessible. Zara1709 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It should also be established that argyria is the result of excessive overdosing (I know at least one of the sources says this, but I will find it if you wish to contest that fact). A single bottle will have no effect on your appearance. Daily ingestion over a period of a couple months or years is a different story though -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New lead paragraph
So, we needed a new lead paragraph anyway, since the article was moved. Now, I am not sure if "Medical uses of silver" is the right title, however, since this is a *general* title, there is no need to repeat the name of the article somewhere in the lead paragraph in BOLD. The point that silver has some established medical uses is now included, as well as the fact that colloidal silver was used historically. The paragraph is now probably even more explicit on the point that colloidal silver, as alternative medication, is a 'fraud', but, as far as I've read it, that would be the view of the "medical literature". If you want some example warnings from the literature, I can readily provide them. Zara1709 (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good overall, and conforms to a pretty good NPOV. I have a few very minor thoughts:
 * 1) "Silver has some medical uses as disinfectant and antiseptic."
 * You mention that because it is a general title, it needn't repeat it in bold. I haven't read that in any guidelines, but couldn't we simply reword it as:
 * The medical uses of silver include as a disinfectant and antiseptic.
 * The "a" being optional, and "include" substitutable with are.
 * 2) "which can be highly socially debilitating"
 * While I agree that this is surely the case, the word "highly" could be anywhere in a great range, and shouldn't be used.
 * 3) "and the medical literature explicitly warns against these silver preparations."
 * Wouldn't this read better as:
 * and the (collective) weight of medical literature warns against these preparations."
 * as not every study explicitly warns against them? That is all. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also copied the Medical section from the silver article, which now points to here, into a new section. The entry for it on silver should probably be summarized. A sentence or two on the colloidal stuff should also be added to that summary. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just read the new lead, and agree the "highly" seemed out of place. Not because i disagree that the side effects are large, but because to me "debilitating" already implies that these are large effects. Good job on the rewrite though, it is a big improvement (and sorry for suggesting you could not be reasonable at the ANI thread Floydian - this article shows i was wrong :-) ). Yob  Mod  22:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as it is simply about a few words, you might as well edit the article directly Floydian - most of the edits are self-explanatory. Not every medical journal article warns against colloidal silver preparation, because not every article is actually concerned with them, but by saying "in the medical literature..." we can take this into account.
 * Then, on the other hand, we should probably have discussed copying the material from the silver article here, before someone did that. I mean, whereas a partial restructuring of the article (as I've done it twice) appears difficult to discuss, there is an established procedure for merging material from different articles. I would agree that most of the material from the silver article would belong here, but then sticking a merge-tag on the article and waiting two days wouldn't have been a problem. Altogether, however, I am positively surprised that it actually has been possible so far, to discuss these issues with Floydian.
 * However, it is a bad surprise that Wdford has shown up at this article. My [personal issues with him aside here, his version of the lead is unacceptable primarily because his wording removed the information that people actually have developed argyria as a result of taking colloidal silver preparations, in the 1920s-40s as well as after colloidal silver was rediscovered as an 'alternate medicine'. [[User:Zara1709|Zara1709]] (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted the "activated silver" bit as that seemed to not be the focus of the article.
 * I agree the copy of the section from the silver article would seem problematic - doesn't leave any sense of origin of the material and may be violating policies. Vsmith (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold and just get 'er done. It certainly needs to be melded into this article, but I'm not exactly a grammar wizard. I write as I'd speak. My merge can always be undone. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I used "activated" because the “activated silver ion is toxic to bacteria and yeasts” - http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ru-Sp/Silver.html I think its more accurate to use the word "activated" here, but I'm not going to stress over it. Wdford (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth could be wrong with using "presence of silver"??? What "extra" could it possibly imply? Wdford (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Chemistry explained" website is not a reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I don't understand what you are attempting to do here. You still haven't made a serious attempt to address my concerns that you are simply harassing me with you edits here; if you want to do some honest work at this article, I would suggest that you start by making smaller edits. During the last few I days I probably spent 8 hours altogether working on this article - since there is no indication that you have spent an equal amount of time working on the topic, why would you think that you could write a better lead then me? And no, you did not "reinstated other important medical uses", as you wrote in the edit summary. Neither the sources currently present in the article (and during the last few days I've read all of them) nor the source you have mentioned on this talk pages, Silver - Chemistry explained, says that silver wound dressings are "highly effective" or that Silver is "widely used in endo-tracheal tubes and catheters". We know that silver is used in wound management and "shows promise" there, and that "silver-based vascular and urinary catheters have now entered clinical use" by 2007. (Chopra 2007). That's it. Instead of "reinstat[ing] other important medical use[s]", you overstated them. If you have some information on this topic that is currently not included in the article, you should include it in the appropriate place, and not try to bring it in the lead first. At this article, there isn't a dispute about the scope (you suggest to move it to medical uses of silver, anyway), so there is no reason to work on the lead paragraph instead of the article. I intentionally didn't mention silver based "endo-tracheal tubes and catheters" (or that like) there, because we only have the basic information of their existence mentioned in the article. If you want to include a statement on these in the lead paragraph, you first need to add more info in the article. Then we can start to discuss the lead. Zara1709 (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not harassing Zara, I am simply seeking to present a more balanced picture than she personally prefers. This is not actually a crime, and I am not required to make any attempt to address her imagined concerns. The history files speak for themselves.
 * I can’t understand Zara’s claimed reasons for trying to minimise the positive uses of silver in the lead, as the article is full of content describing those very uses. Nonetheless, I have added still more referenced material to the article to provide the balance, which BTW took nowhere near 8 hours to dig up and summarise.
 * The current lead fails to provide a balanced summary of the topic, and is overly obsessive about the contra-indications of overdosing on colloidal silver. Honestly, there is more to the topic than beating up the colloidal silver guys. That’s a good enough reason to improve the lead.
 * The article is a bit jumbled, with valid material scattered inconsistently and sometimes repeated. A bit of a cleanup is required. I should think it could be done in less than 8 hours.
 * Wdford (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the most important medical uses of silver were considered to be “overstated” vis a vis the superficial material quoted, I have added a lot of extra referenced material for balance. I have grouped the material more logically, including creating some new headings. I also removed a bunch of duplication. I haven’t removed anything completely, unless it is already discussed somewhere else. Although some polishing is still required, the next main challenge is the lead section, which still understates the many valuable medical uses of silver and is over-weighted on bashing the colloidal preparations. According to Zara, “restructuring of the article … appears difficult to discuss.” I trust that the changes I have made are self-evidently "honest", and that other editors will help by improving where possible rather than mindless mass reverting in contravention of WP:RV. Wdford (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Article structure proposed by Wdford
Wdford, I don't know where you are heading with you current edits, but please show some diligence. I did some massive edits at this article, too, but 1) I've limited myself to using the sources already present 2) I was and am preprepared to justify the article structure I proposed. You, however, already added several new sources with your first edit diff; I haven't checked out all of them, but those I've checked out appear to be news reports and promo material, not the most reliable sources: This alone would give us enough reason for a discussion. With your second edit diff, you moved material based on an article in a medical journal about the (scientific) historical medical uses of colloidal silver preparations into the section on alternative medicine, which doesn't make any sense. We need to keep the historic medical uses (which were discontinued sometime in the 1940s) separate from the current alternative medicine uses. Your final version (here), did not include a section or subsection on those historic medical uses as internal medication. In the section "historic applications" you used the sentence "Physicians used it as an eyedrop for ophthalmic problems,[4] for various infections,[5][6] and sometimes internally for diseases such as tropical sprue, epilepsy, gonorrhea, and the common cold.", without the necessary addition: "In the 1940s, however, the medical use of silver diminished, due to both the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics and concern about argyria and other side effects of silver products." The version you proposed does not treat these "historical applications" adequately, and there are a several more issues. I think we could discuss your edits step-by-step; your first edit appears to include some useful material, but the article structure you propose is not an useful approach to the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On a second look, there are already massive POV problems with the first edit. Wdford, you added a statement to the article: "The non-profit, Washington State-based Immunogenic Research Foundation is interested in clinical research about silver’s potential to combat global epidemics and pandemics including cancer, hepatitis C, HIV, Lymes Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and drug-resistant super-germs." Your apparent source for this is a posting at a forum with the url: http://forums.silverseek.com/; I shouldn't have to tell you this, but 1) web forums are generally not considered to be reliable sources 2) the whole reason the topic of this article is so controversial is that some people out there have marketed silver preparations with unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness, like that these preparations can "prevent or treat numerous diseases like cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and herpes, as well as tuberculosis". Since you apparently haven't done so yet, please read at least the article Colloidal Silver Products from the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Damn, I am not sure of this, but if we give the impression that silver products can treat diseases like HIV, the FDA could probably sue the Wikimedia Foundation for that. There is no way I can agree to that edit. Zara1709 (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no rule that says one can’t add new sources – in fact, adding additional sources and growing the knowledge base is the entire point. Please check them out properly at your leisure. My structure is obvious and logical – Lead / History / Biological effects / Established modern medical uses / Colloidal silver preparations for ingestion - . This is done to discuss the scientifically valid uses of silver separately from the non-valid use of colloidal silver consumed internally, to avoid confusing readers into assuming that silver has no valid modern medical uses. It is also more informative than scattering historical details around somewhat randomly, and repeating selected details in section after section. It is also important to clearly report that silver is currently in widespread use as a scientifically proven medical treatment with a variety of different applications. To mass-revert all that material based on your personal preference for a scattered and repetitive structure is a contravention of WP:RV. PS- I have left in numerous mentions that internally-ingested colloidal silver is dangerous, and I did indeed mention that "In the 1940s, however, the medical use of silver diminished, due to both the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics and concern about argyria and other side effects of silver products." It’s right there in the final paragraph of the history section – go see for yourself. PPS – the comments re the Immunogenic Research Foundation were reported accurately, the comments were made in a formal presentation by the executive director of the Foundation, who is a very highly qualified specialist, and the original slides can be viewed here - (http://www.imref.org/articles/ppts/china_presentation.ppt#256,1,Slide 1). There is no way the FDA can sue Wikipedia for accurately reporting ideas that a highly qualified specialist presented at an international conference. However, if you prefer, I will change the reference. You see – if you point out specific concerns instead of blind mass reverting, we can quickly resolve things. Wdford (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I took a short look at http://www.imref.org/; That website is either a hoax or these people are total freaks. They write, http://www.imref.org/vision.php, quote:


 * "The milieu or terrain of all living processes is an omnipresent colloidal state. The colloidal state originates from colloidal minerals. Colloidal minerals are minerals suspended in water, not dissolved, and they have three principle properties without which life as we know it could not exist. Colloidal minerals (i) form organized states between themselves, (ii) they structure and organize water itself, and (iii) they ignite oxidation and reduction reactions which are both the precursors to as well as the ongoing centerpiece to metabolism in general. In higher life forms and especially human tissues, the colloidal state is the causal determinant of either: (a) optimal cellular health, immunity and healing capacity or (b) disease. The war between health and disease is being perpetually waged through the highly organizing and energizing dynamics of colloidal minerals which give vitality and full capacity to the colloidal state. All infectious and degenerative processes become inoperative in highly organized and energized colloidal milieus catalyzing highly evolved redox reactions. All higher life forms evolved by harnessing this heightened state of oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), while lower life forms continually prove they are unable to do so. Once understood, the balance of power in this war may be reproducibly shifted to induce a disease-free, optimal health state. 

I don't know what that side is about, and I possibly even don't want to know. But from this short look, this site is certainly not a reliable source. Zara1709 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are perhaps some problems with the references quoted by Wdford BUT I did prefer the structure he/she tried to put in place. It was more logical and readable. Zara's version just seems to have stuff all over the place. As such, I nearly reverted back to Wdfords version but thought better of it hoping you guys can come to some sort of compromise. In particular Zaras 'Ionic silver' section seems to have a bit of everything in it except ionic silver. Beaupoint (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The ionic silver section was merged into this article by Floydian. I would complete the merge (and dissolve that section), but I do have other things to do besides editing Wikipedia, so I though we could postpone that for a few days. Aside from that, I think I have pointed out that there are some massive problems with Wdfords edits. This doesn't mean that we should restore parts of those edits, but as a whole the version he proposed is unacceptable. Zara1709 (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are indeed serious problems with the introduction of non-WP:RS sources. As Zara1709 has pointed out, several of the sources used by Wdford are not reliable (I've checked a couple) especially for a potentially controversial subject. The history of this article shows that it is controversial. Using such sources, and repeatedly reverting them back in, is a serious problem. If Wdford wants his/her edits to be seriously considered, then use only verifiably reliable sources. The current edit warring needs to stop - were I not involved it would be block/protect time. Vsmith (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this talk page could probably attract a lot of attention in a few hours (when I'll either be sleeping or at the university), let me summarize the issue of the article structure. I've made two series of bold edits at the article (using an in-use tag), that established the article structure before Wdfords edits. If someone had objected to my suggestion of an article structure back then, I would have tried to justify it (without reverting), but, against my expectation, no one challenged it - Until Wdford a few hours ago. The first thing I did in this respect was to establish one section (full diff) on the medical uses, with one subsection on the historic uses as internal medication and one subsection on the current controversy about colloidal silver as alternative medicine. These are different issues, but they are not unrelated. I also created a section on the "Biological effects of silver" to give the reader a general overview. There was some criticism, but I think I can say that my proposed article structure found acceptance. For the next series of bold edits, I took a look at a source that was previously disputed and finally (after reading it 5 times) figured out that this source was talking about silver as (external) treatment for open wounds. I've checked several other sources, and realized that this was a medical use of silver (if you want to call it that) which was different from the two kinds I had identified previously. I brought this kind of use (the use of silver-containing medication as external treatment for infectious wounds, burns and ulcers) under a separate subsection. There was an anonymous ip who reverted me during that series of edits, but I filed that under 'vandalism' and not under 'honest objection'. diff The remainder of the discussion and editing since then consisted in a move of the article, a rewrite of the lead on my part with a friendly discussion with Floydian and an unfriendly one with Wdford, a merger (or rather a copy&paste) of a section from the article "silver" into this article, and now the series of edits by Wdford. Aside from several other problems with Wdfords edits, as far as the article structure is concerned, Wdford version does not include separate subsections on the historical medical used of silver as an internal medication until the 1940s and the current alternative medicine uses. Since the most reputable source I could identify, (the article by Fung & Bowen, 1996) makes a clear distinction between these uses, the article should make this distinction, too. Before we continue to work on the article, we need to discuss this issue. I think that, in a fair discussion based on reliable sources, the article structure I had previously established should find the support of the majority of editors, and then we can see how much of the material Wdford had also added (and which, of course, is preserved in the edit history) can be useful. If you consider the bold-revert-discuss-cycle, this is actually the only way to discuss this issue. Anyone can propose a new article structure (which would be impossible to implement with only one bold edit), but if someone else disagrees, then this someone can make a revert and then the issue would have to be discussed. If we are going to discuss this, I think that I have very good arguments, so I am not afraid of it - and I certainly would not be willing to accept Wdford's article structure without a discussion  Zara1709 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected again
OK, I see the page has been protected again. Discuss the specific problems during the next 3 days and come to some form of agreement. Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Full Protection is a great way to allow the time for a discussion. ;) Zara1709 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I found Wdfords general structure to be an improvement so would it not have been easier to allow a revert to Wdfords version, followed then by working on removing Wdfords dubious references. This may be easier than trying to discuss content AND structure all in one go. I don't think Zara should be too opposed to this as  Wdfords removed very little of Zara's material. Beaupoint (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No harm comes from working on a version that isn't displayed to the public until said work is complete. The status-quo should remain in cases of dispute. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  03:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Zara mis-states the position. Zara never made a “suggestion of an article structure”, she merely wrote what she wanted to without any discussion, and now defends her work as though it has some special badge of approval. When I objected at the time to the imbalance in the lead I was ordered by Zara to first add the necessary material to the body of the article, which I did. In that short time (a day or so) Zara’s unilateral structure (complete with imbalance, randomness and duplication) somehow became cast in stone, and is now considered to be the status quo. The edit history records clearly show that.

Please note that “Medical uses of silver” is not a controversial topic – silver has a long history of medical usefulness, as the huge body of literature shows. The only controversial aspect is that some people sell colloidal silver for ingestion, which has no proven benefits (yet) and which can be harmful if you overdose. I do not support drinking colloidal silver myself, and I happily retained the dedicated section for colloidal silver, as well as retaining warnings in other sections. All this material is what Zara put here – I did not add or remove anything “controversial”, I merely renamed the dedicated section to “Colloidal silver preparations for ingestion” so that readers could better understand. My interest in the article is not about drinking colloidal silver.

Zara’s main criticism of “my” structure seems to be that, in her opinion, I failed to include “separate subsections on the historical medical used of silver as an internal medication until the 1940s and the current alternative medicine uses.” Well actually I retained the section on the history of silver in medicine, which clearly includes using silver as internal medication until the 1940’s (I merely broadened it, and moved it to the top of the article), and I also retained the separate section on the “alternative uses”, but merely renamed it as mentioned above. I therefore see zero justification for Zara’s “concerns” about my structure. If she thinks it necessary to repeat that paragraph in the dedicated colloidal silver section, then a simple cut-&-paste would suffice – there was no (legitimate) need for a blind mass-revert.

Zara’s structure, however, is still based on a dedicated “colloidal silver” article, with a tagged on mention of the broader uses of silver in medicine to reflect the expanded scope, and an extra section of useful stuff imported in from elsewhere without integrating it properly. Zara admits herself that she was not previously aware that silver is actually very useful in modern medicine. My efforts here have been to better report the rest of the story – without undermining the warning against drinking colloidal silver. This involved bringing in extra material, reordering existing material, and removing duplications. Any objective person reading my contributions can clearly see that. Yet this work is repeatedly mass-reverted by Zara, on a series of increasingly flimsy excuses.

I am once again amazed that Zara claims for herself the right to use the bold-revert-discuss-cycle, but denies that same right to any editor who disagrees with her. She states that she “certainly would not be willing to accept Wdford's article structure without a discussion”, and yet she defends her own flawed structure with repeated mass reverts in contravention of WP:RV, without ever having subjected it to a discussion in turn. Secondly, Zara has no problem with saying about a medical research foundation, lead by a board of highly qualified medical specialists (http://www.imref.org/), that they are “either a hoax or these people are total freaks,” – with no justification at all, merely because they disagree with her own POV. I object to Zara’s flawed structure being granted God-given status, and I think we should all be allowed to improve articles without illegal mass-reverts by would-be article owners.

Finally, there is no shortage of reliable sources on this topic. Please point out (specifically) which of my sources you object to, and I will happily replace them with a range of others.

Wdford (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wdford. Some of your references are definitely unacceptable. For example, Immunogenics Foundation (http://www.imref.org/) is founded and funded by Stephen Quinto, owner of Natural Immunogenics, a manufacturer of colloidal silver brands Sovereign Silver and Argentyn. Those sorts of commercial references are just not going to pass muster here. However you do have my support regarding your structure. It is more logical and easier to read than Zara's. And in my opinion Zara certainly did not have 'prior approval' for her structure as she seems to suggest.  Both of you have made valuable contributions here. I hope you can work it out. Beaupoint (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll have to comment this: Wdford, your are wrong on several levels: 1) Quote: "“Medical uses of silver” is not a controversial topic." R: Previously, when this article was still called colloidal silver, there were at least two threads on it at the fringe theories noticeboard and one at the ANI. There is a fringe POV involved in the topic of colloidal silver, since it is marketed from some people with unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness, to the extend that the Food and Drug Administration (United States) "banned colloidal silver sellers from claiming any therapeutic or preventive value for the product". However,in your first edit, you actually added the fringe POV to the article with the statement "The non-profit, Washington State-based Immunogenic Research Foundation is interested in clinical research about silver’s potential to combat global epidemics and pandemics including cancer, hepatitis C, HIV, Lymes Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and drug-resistant super-germs."  You even had the nerve of stating your intent in the edit summary as "to provide a more balanced picture" - which you certainly are not doing by adding a fringe POV to the article (without identifying it as such).

2)Quote: "actually I retained the section on the history of silver in medicine, which clearly includes using silver as internal medication until the 1940’s." R: "Colloidal silver preparations for ingestion" (your section title, not mine) were marketed as a conventional medical treatment until roughly the 1940s and are marketed again since the 1990s as an alternative medical treatment. You are using the quotes from Fung & Bowen about conventional medicine in that section, but the section doesn't actually distinguish between conventional and alternative medicine any more. Your "Historical applications" section, on the other hand, doesn't actually say anything about colloidal silver as an conventional internal medical treatment until the 1940s! You have separated the statement: "Physicians used it as an eyedrop for ophthalmic problems,[4] for various infections,[5][6] and sometimes internally for diseases such as tropical sprue, epilepsy, gonorrhea, and the common cold.[7][8][9]" from the next paragraph, which explains why these uses were discontinued: The use of colloidal silver preparations (CSP) to treat or prevent "gonorrhea and gonorrheal conjunctivitis due to purported bacteriocidal properties" has largely been replaced "by less toxic antimicrobials with substantiated effectiveness."[38] Considering "direct application to mucous membranes in the nose, throat, urethra, and colon", there is "no evidence that CSP [colloidal silver preparations] are effective at these other sites and toxicity has been reported."[38] Although "silver products were infrequently promoted for oral use, benefits have been even more questionable."[38]

In short, Wdford, what you considered (and still considers) to be "imbalance, randomness and duplication" were quite often important distinctions - and since you apparently didn't read the sources properly, you are still failing the see these distinctions.

3)And on top of your failure to see or admit these mistakes (and I've identified several more in your edits), you are bringing in some unnecessary polemics in your comment. My work doesn't have "some special badge of approval." It previously found consensus from the editors, and if that wasn't enough, I spent an hour last night on explaining my article structure again. I've previously explained that I would have accepted a justified full revert of my edits, and I am asking you to do the same. If you are changing the article structure, you are incurring the risk that someone disagrees, and in that case you have to justify your suggestion and explain what problems you see with the previous article structure - but you are not even attempting that. Instead you simply call my previous article "flawed" and say that you object to it "being granted God-given status". Hey, if you can't explain why you think that my article structure is "flawed", you polemics are quite unnecessary. Polemics are useful make an argument more obvious, but you are not even having an argument. And by the way, no one, and certainly not me, said that the article structure I had established was "God-given." Zara1709 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I always accepted that drinking colloidal silver was a “fringe” medication, but this article is no longer exclusively about drinking colloidal silver. I agree that there is thusfar no evidence that it helps to drink the stuff, and my wording of the article clearly says as much in a number of places. However, in the interests of balance, I think we should also mention that research is on-going. In this regard, mentioning the declaration of intent from a specific organisation is not fringe, it’s a statement of fact, and their own website is surely a good source for referencing their own INTENTION. Nowhere did I say they had succeeded, merely that they were researching. I consider this to be balanced, rather than fringe, and I think Zara is over-reacting just a little bit. However, in the spirit of compromise, I am happy to delete this line for now.
 * 2) Again, I feel that hammering the distinction between colloidal silver being “conventional” in 1940 and “alternative” in 1990 is a bit picky, and I don’t think the distinction is actually as important as all that. My wording of the article contains all the necessary detail to reflect the true picture. However, yet again, in the spirit of compromise, I am happy to include Zara’s EXACT WORDING, and to move a few paras back and forth to satisfy this desire. I do however think that Zara could have addressed this by moving around a sentence or two herself, and that a series of mass-reverts was an over-reaction.
 * 3) I don’t think Zara’s structure found consensus – it was never agreed in advance, it hasn’t had time to become settled, and editors such as me have indeed objected in the days since Zara unilaterally implemented it. I have justified my preferred structure repeatedly on the talk page, namely that putting the history section at the top makes chronological sense, and that its more appropriate to have separate sections for the (not-accepted) colloidal silver material and the (very accepted) other modern uses. The structure is really basically the same, its actualy just the headings that are clearer and the moving out of the history section to the top, so I can't see any legitimate reason why Zara should be so vehemently opposed to this. So far the majority of editors seem to prefer my structure, and by Zara’s standard that is enough to change the structure (as slight as the change actually is). However despite her claims Zara is flatly refusing to accept a justified modification to her structure.
 * Since the majority of interested editors appear to agree that my version of the structure is easier to read, I propose that my structure be re-instated, with the necessary few content-changes to implement the above-mentioned compromises. Surely that would be acceptable to all reasonable editors, and further modifications to the content can be made from there on?
 * Wdford (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

1) Wdford, I am not accusing you of promoting a fringe POV here; I am pointing out that you failed to identify a fringe POV source as such. You added a fringe POV to the article without discussing it as such and there is no way you can deny that.

2)This article is about a topic (Medical uses of silver), which has several sub-topics.
 * a) Current and medically justified used of silver
 * b) Historical and, but by contemporary standards, unjustified uses of silver as a conventional medication
 * c) Uses of silver in alternative medicine

I think it's obvious that each of these subtopics needs a separate (sub-)section. Your wording of the article does certainly "not contain all the necessary detail to reflect the true picture." I have previously given you an explicit example: You moved several quotes about the use of silver-containing conventional medicine to the section in alternative medicine. I could give you several more examples, but so far you have failed to even reply to this one.

3) Fact is: Until you came along, no one challenged the article structure; now, I might take silence to imply consensus, but this doesn't matter here. I was and I am prepared to justify my article structure on this talk page, whereas you are obviously not willing to do that. Why else would you avoid actually discussing the article structure, and instead try to make it appear as if you version found consensus on this talk page. (If mine didn't find consensus, yours has certainly found less.) I've offered that we could go through your edits step-by-step, but you didn't even show a sign that you noticed this offer. This is not the first time I was unable to discuss a controversial issue with you, and I've had enough. I'll write a long thread at the ANI. Zara1709 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wdford, you weren't even here until AFTER Zara made several contributions to the article. You're right in saying that her edits were almost immediately taken up as the status quo, that's because they were effective and made no changes to the actual content of the article. All of the editors that are consistent contributors here had (and still have) the opportunity to oppose those changes, and none of them have. You have dropped from the sky crying oppression yet are violating several policies.


 * You are correct though that History should be at the top. It should only be at the bottom for diseases/disorders and medical tests, according to WP:MEDMOS.  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Floydian - I didn’t just drop from the sky, I got involved when the scope was being expanded because I am very interested in the medical uses of silver other than people drinking the stuff. That’s not illegal.
 * Based on the two history files, I made my first contribution on the talk page on 27 October, while Zara made her first contribution on the talk page only on 31 October – directly after my second contribution. I made my first contribution to the article itself on 31 October. Zara made her first contribution to the article also on 31 October, but about 13 hours after my first contribution, and her very first contribution was to revert my earlier edit. Her major rewrite only happened thereafter, under an {inuse} tag (twice), and I immediately queried the lack of balance in the final product – just a few hours after the end of her rewrite. You could easily check this for yourself, if you really want to know the actual facts.
 * Third, I am not the only editor who contested Zara’s preferred version – per the history file MastCell made several corrections along the way, before I came back on-line, although Zara promptly undid much of that work as well.
 * Fourth, after Zara’s series of “bold edits” the article was still heavily weighted towards colloidal silver, and needed more material on the other medical uses to balance it up correctly. Adding extra content is what Wikipedia is all about – especially since the scope of the article had just been broadened by consensus. You yourself imported extra material under the “Ionic Silver” heading, which is useful stuff but which needed to be integrated and duplications needed to be removed. Do you not agree? And since that work got mass-reverted, it needs to be integrated again and duplications need to be removed again - as soon as the protection is lifted.
 * Fifth, a mass-revert is a blatant contravention of WP:RV, especially when the contested aspects were not huge and a simple modification or two would suffice. Repeated mass reverts are even more inappropriate. You surely know this already.
 * Six, the sources I quoted were chosen to support particular points, namely that certain stuff actually exists and certain things are actually being done by certain people. If you merely want to “prove” that a product exists there is no harm in citing a supplier thereof, especially if the product is FDA approved; it only becomes a contravention when you use a supplier’s website to describe the properties or effectiveness thereof. See WP:V and WP:SELFPUB. I don’t believe I crossed that line, but I have stated repeatedly that I am happy to correct references if needed. If you are concerned that I have been violating other policies, please point them out specifically.
 * Wdford (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, both of you broke WP:BRD. However, the BR bit is done, and the grounds cleared, leaving just the D for us. Keep in mind that this article was JUST moved, and that a lot of stuff needs to be done to integrate the ionic section I C&P'd as well as the rest of the article, which is indeed centric on Colloidal silver (as that was the old article). Fighting only prevents these integrations, so why don't the two of you work on a collaboration at Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver/sandbox? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford: Floydian and I had been discussing this article for a week or so at the noticeboard, and you did not participate at all in that discussion. As soon as I had pointed out there that the article was unprotected, you made an edit at the article. Why would you do that? I said previously, that I find it incredibly hard to believe that, among the million+ articles at Wikipedia, you would "accidentally" be interested in the same one as I. There are dozens of articles discussed at the noticeboards each day, and I intentionally picked this one, because to me it looked like a controversial issue which could be resolved with relatively little effort, as long as all participants agree on our basic policies (especially: reliable sources). Probably I should not have started to edit this article after I saw that you might get involved, but on the other hand it was indeed relatively easy to fix the core of the issue. But the issue of balancing is difficult at this article, and your edits to the lead paragraph upset that balance. We could have discussed them, but then you went on an started a rewrite of the article, with massive problems. The most severe problem is that you added a fringe source to the article, which at an article, which has been discussed at the fringe noticeboards already twice, simply must not happen. And instead of admitting your mistake, you are trying to downplay it. Wdford, you did not try do inform the readers that there some people out there who consider colloidal silver to be a cure for (almost) everything. You wrote in the article: "The non-profit, Washington State-based Immunogenic Research Foundation is interested in clinical research about silver’s potential to combat global epidemics and pandemics including cancer, hepatitis C, HIV, Lymes Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and drug-resistant super-germs." see here You completely missed that this "non-profit, Washington State-based Immunogenic Research Foundation" is a bunch of, to put it mildly, alternative medicine promoters. And on top of that, you misplaced the reference and your next sentence starts with the words: " In a paper published in 2006 in the international scientific journal Current Science ..." Your version of the article was giving the reader the impression that SCIENTISTS were discussing "silver’s potential to combat global epidemics and pandemics including cancer, hepatitis C, HIV, Lymes Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and drug-resistant super-germs." This is the worst problem with your edits, but there are several more, which is why I went for a full revert as soon as I realized what errors you made already in the first edit. Well, it's ok to make mistakes, but you are simply unable to admit them. I made mistakes in my first series of edits, too, and "mastcell" corrected them. Nobody started an edit war about that. You, on the other hand, don't even want to know what problems I see with your edits. Instead of discussing your edits, you are accusing me of a "blatant contravention of WP:RV.." If I think that one or two simply modifications would not suffice, then of course I can do a mass-revert. If you want, I can take a look at each of your edits and explain to you which mistake you made. But that would require that you have the ability to accept valid criticism, which you simply lack. You are wasting all your efforts of finding the mistakes of other people. I mean, have you read wp:rv? There is a paragraph in that guideline, in italics and in bold writing:


 * "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives."

Reverting doesn't say anything anything specific about mass-reverts. But the guideline is abundantly clear on the point that the first revert (in this case mine) should be followed by a discussion, not by several counter-reverts. If I think that your edits are so bad that I'll have to revert them as a whole, you have to listen to me while I explain my view. But you are not only a sub-average editor (which wouldn't be a problem if you were actually able to learn something), but you are also completely unable to take into account the possibility that you might be wrong. At least this is the behaviour that you have shown so far. If you want, I can spent a few hours on this and give you a detailed analysis of the mistakes you made in you edits. If you don't want that, please leave this article alone, so that other people have a chance to edit it and we don't have to solve this dispute first. Zara1709 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank Zara for yet another kind offer to point out to me all my many mistakes. In the interests of speeding up progress, I offer the following summary of her concerns expressed thusfar:


 * 1) In editing the lead section, I merged the mention of the argyria problem experienced in the 1940’s with the argyria problems experienced in the 1990’s, in order reduce the undue weight given to the negative aspects of the medical use of silver. Zara however continues to demand extra emphasis on the negatives.


 * 2) Zara then accused me of overstating the positive medical uses of silver, even though the literature contains an abundance of evidence, and she demanded that I add extra material to the article first before daring to tamper with her lead section. I duly complied.


 * 3) Then Zara complained that some of my references were “news reports and promo material”, without acknowledging that the majority of them were valid. I justified the exceptions on the basis of WP:SELFPUB, and I also repeatedly agreed to replace any references that were found to be unacceptable. All of this was ignored by Zara.


 * 4) Zara complained repeatedly about my failing to distinguish adequately between “the (scientific) historical medical uses of colloidal silver preparations” and the “alternative medicine”, because my wording did not emphasise the negative to her satisfaction. Although I disagree with this undue emphasis I agreed, in the spirit of compromise, to include her EXACT WORDING on this issue, but once again this offer was completely ignored, and Zara continues to flog this complaint.


 * 5) Zara has lately demanded a structure which includes separate sections for a) Current and medically justified used of silver, b) Historical and, but by contemporary standards, unjustified uses of silver as a conventional medication, and c) Uses of silver in alternative medicine. My structure from the beginning retained exactly this separation, although with differently worded headings, as I have pointed out repeatedly, but Zara completely ignores this fact.


 * 6) Zara took huge issue with my mentioning that the Immunogenic Research Foundation is researching the potential for silver to cure thusfar incurable diseases and superbugs. In the course of this she misinterpreted the fact that I only mentioned they were doing research, and that neither I nor they claimed that they had succeeded. Her own POV became even more visible when she called the IRF hoaxers or “total freaks”, and demanded that they be labelled as “a fringe POV”. She even now disputes the fact that the IRF people are scientists, although their staff is packed with highly qualified specialists – whose only failing is that they don’t agree with Zara. I have nonetheless offered to remove this sentence in the spirit of compromise, which offer she once again completely ignored, and she continues to hammer on this issue. I see that she now regards this as my “most severe problem”.


 * 6) Zara has accused me of using “unnecessary polemics”, although she has from the outset repeatedly accused me of harassment and bad faith. She has complained that until I “came along, no one challenged the article structure”, as though the article was long settled, although I challenged her structure only hours after she had finished creating it. Her talk page contributions are littered with insults and personal attacks.


 * 7) Most seriously to me, she has repeatedly accused me of failing to justify my edits. I have in fact justified them repeatedly, as follows:
 * I have grouped the material more logically, including changing some headings.
 * I moved the history section to the top of the article, to improve chronological logic.
 * I have completed the merge of the Ionic Silver section, and deleted that heading as redundant.
 * I also removed a bunch of duplication.
 * I haven’t removed anything completely, unless it is already discussed somewhere else.
 * I have clearly separated the discussion of the valid modern medical uses from the use of colloidal silver preparations for ingestion.
 * Without undermining the ineffectiveness or the dangers of drinking colloidal silver, I have added extra material to better balance the article re the positive medical uses of silver.
 * However Zara has not responded to this, and continues instead to allege that I refuse to justify my changes.


 * Unless Zara has anything else to complain about, may I assume that I have addressed all valid concerns, and that once the protection is lifted we can continue to fix up this article constructively and without need for mass reverts?


 * Wdford (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * tldr. Review WP:WIKISTALK. It is incresingly hard to believe that you, Wdford, are operating in good faith. Time to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but don't make assumptions or take sides if you're too lazy to read. What were you not too lazy to read that caused you to form your current opinion? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How (not) to discuss undue weight
Wdford, now we might actually be getting somewhere. I mean, you are still including superficial and UNNECESSARY polemics in your comments, and you completely failed to notice that only editor who supported your article structure turned out to be a sockpuppet of an editor who was banned from this article (and is now completely banned), but at least you admitted that you are seeing "undue weight given to the negative aspects of the medical use of silver". So this is a discussion about balancing POVs after all! And the first thing you have to admit when you want to discuss issues of balancing is that those issues can often be quite complex. People have read different sources and come from different backgrounds, so consequently they differ in their prior knowledge of the issue and would give different aspects a different weight. The only way to solve this dilemma is to get down to it and discuss the issue - until a discussion has taken place, different viewpoints on due weight are legitimate. You, on the other hand, are not even willing to discuss the issue, and are not bringing forward any source-based arguments at all. You are saying that the "literature contains an abundance of evidence" for what you call the "positive medical uses of silver", but you are not actually referring to any literature in your comments. Try adding a link and a quote at least once! That would be extremely helpful, because I've read all the available sources in the article, and I am utterly perplexed by your conclusion. There are some uses for silver-containing medication in the treatment of external infections. Silver compounds are also sometimes used in medical equipment to prevent infections, and as disinfectant (which might or might not be a "medical use" in the strict sense.) I certainly don't see any "abundance of evidence". The only way you could have come to such a conclusion is by an inadequate reading of the sources. I mean, the article by Chopra (2007) is mainly talking about silver compounds in the treatment of infections wounds, and not at all about the internal medical uses of silver. My version has this somehow taken into consideration, but with your edits, we lost that distinction again, see here. Whereas you apparently thought that you were fixing a duplication, you in fact created a misquotation in the article. You wrecked up a quotation which I had just fixed. I still don't think that you are a Fringe POV-Warrior in the strict sense, but from what I've seen you are neither able to evaluate source correctly, nor are you able to take part in a source-based discussion of your edits. Probably you are subconsciously taking in unreflected positive stance towards silver as a medicine, and are simply reading the sources your way, instead of trying to figure out what they actually say. However, since you are also utterly unable to accept criticism (you are e.g. still defending your quotation of a fringe source), I see simply no way you can make a useful contribution to this article. Zara1709 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My involvement here was always about “balancing POV’s” and making it more clear that silver has valuable medical uses, rather than just hammering the colloidal silver snake-oil salesmen. I said so clearly from my very first edit on the talk page see here and this balance was both the stated intention and the effect of my first edit after Zara finished her rewrite see here, as her lead at that time made no mention at all of the positive benefits of silver in medical practice.
 * I fully understand that editors “differ in their prior knowledge of the issue and would give different aspects a different weight” – that’s why this project is open to all who have anything to contribute.
 * Zara accuses me yet again of failing to offer sources, but actually I included a number of sources when I added material along the way. Please see attached a dozen or so valid references – most if not all of which were included in my changes right from the start, but unfortunately were immediately mass-reverted, hence peoples’ subsequent perplexity.


 * Actually, Zara's preferred source (Chopra) is quite complimentary about the effectiveness of silvered dressings, and Chopra’s concern is actually around “the need for silver MIC levels and breakpoints to be developed and standardized”. I thought that qualified the reference for broader use, and although I long ago conceded on this in the spirit of compromise, Zara continues to complain about it.
 * Finally, I note that Zara's personal attacks persist, and that she has still not responded to my justifications of my proposed structure – I trust that will follow shortly.
 * Wdford (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I am not making personal attacks against you. I am only honest. When I come to the conclusion that you are incompetent as an editor, then I can say that. When I am feeling that you are harassing me, then I can say that.

And you did not understand the legitimate differences on due weight "fully", you apparently did not understand them enough NOT to waste 3 days with laments about my "mass-revert". You did not understand this well enough to see that you should have limited yourself to either 1) bringing in more sources or 2) changing the article structure, because the differences on this couldn't possible be discussed at the same time. Also I DID bring in the positive uses of silver into the lead with one of my latter edits: "Physicians use silver sulfadiazine (Ag-SD) or silver nano-materials in wound dressings to treat external infections." I didn't mention silver based urinary catheters and that like there yet, because the sources on this are inconclusive: "trials have provided mixed results"  1, "...studies published after the meta-analysis have reported more mixed results" 2. You see, I've indeed taken a look at your sources, and I have (so far) come to the conclusion that your version of the article is misquoting them. Now, I know that there are more important issues in life than a discussion of the effectiveness of silver-based urinary catheters - but I've also concluded from your edits so far, that you would create an article full of misquotations and statements based on less-reliable sources, if you're edits would go unopposed. Every time when I write a reply, I ask myself: Is this really worth it? Why should I care, when the article on Medical uses of silver at Wikipedia includes some grave errors - I am not basing my health decisions on Wikipedia. But then I think of the fact that many people will not be able to spot these errors, and I remember that you already sabotaged my work at two other articles. So this time I am putting up a fight. And if you think you can simply re-do your edits as soon as the full protection is gone, then you are wrong. Zara1709 (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.” Zara has not adhered to these policies, her content and tone is heavily negative and Zara has repeatedly mass-reverted attempts to correct the existing imbalances. Her latest justification is that I seemingly did not understand policy “well enough to see that you should have limited yourself to either 1) bringing in more sources or 2) changing the article structure, because the differences on this couldn't possible be discussed at the same time.” I'm not aware of any policy that says editors may not add some new material on the same day that they move around some existing paragraphs.
 * Zara has selectively misinterpreted two of the sources I provided, and used this as justification for continuing to downplay the necessary balancing material. Specifically, Zara quoted one of my 16 sources as saying "trials have provided mixed results" 1, whereas the Conclusion of the quoted report actually states that “This meta-analysis clarifies discrepant results among trials of silver-coated urinary catheters by revealing that silver alloy catheters are significantly more effective in preventing urinary tract infections than are silver oxide catheters.” Zara also quotes another of my 16 sources as saying “..studies published after the meta-analysis have reported more mixed results" 2. However this selective quote is taken completely out of context. What the paragraph actually says is “The 4 clinical trials of silver alloy catheters included in the meta-analysis all showed a significant reduction in the development of catheter-associated bacteriuria. As shown in Table 15.1.1, studies published after the meta-analysis have reported more mixed results. Several of the [8] studies have shown a statistically significant benefit of silver alloy catheters, but with a smaller relative risk reduction compared to that reported in the meta-analysis. However, one study failed to find a significant benefit associated with silver alloy catheters, and another found benefit from silver alloy catheters in those given such catheters for about 5 days, but not in those given the catheter for 14 days.” The report again concludes that “The data supporting the use of silver alloy urinary catheters to reduce urinary catheter-related bacteriuria is reasonably strong.” Zara offers no comment at all on my other 14 sources, which report even more favourably on the effectiveness of the medical uses of silver.
 * I therefore believe that there is indeed an “abundance of evidence” that silver has been proven to be highly effective in treating infections. However the brief paragraph on “Silver compounds as antiseptics” describes the highly effective proven silver treatments with the words “interesting” and “reemerging”. Meanwhile a quick scan shows that the word “argyria” appears 20 times in the current version, and the words “toxic” and “toxicity” appear 9 times. I therefore believe that the negative aspects of drinking colloidal silver have UNDUE weight at present, that the proven positive aspects should be given more weight in the article, and that there is no valid reason for preventing this balance from being restored. I therefore cannot understand Zara’s threat to continue to prevent this blatant unbalance from being corrected.
 * Finally, I note that Zara's unabashed incivility continues, and that she continues to evade discussing my justifications of my proposed structure.
 * Wdford (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio
I've reverted User:Wdford's last edit as the first paragraph was basically a cut-paste WP:Copyvio from the abstract at http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000093928 - we simply don't do that. Vsmith (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that statement would have to be paraphrased completely. However, the first logical thing to do at this article would be to complete the merger from the Silver article, anyway. And since I can always discuss the issue of the use of silver in urinal catheters with Wdford later, I think I'm going to complete the merger right now. Zara1709 (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that this article be merged with Silver? Neuromancer (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Zara is referring to the section which was copied here from the silver article a while back. Vsmith (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that finishing the merger of that section is going to take at least another hour. I am not going to cut&paste a sentence without verifying the sources. Actually I've just discovered that there is a source that at least says that silver sulfadiazine has an "antiherpesviral" effect here, but I don't know any source on an anti-viral effect in general. Zara1709 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article which I have quoted here is interesting, but it does not say what is attributed to it: "Silver nitrate solution was a standard of care but was largely replaced by silver sulfadiazine cream (SSD Cream)", so I am removing this source from the article for now. Zara1709 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated to the quarrel, is "Chronic intake of silver products, especially colloidal silver, can result in silver or silver sulfide particles in the skin" correct? I don't believe there is any preference... Just "chronic intake of silver products can result in"... -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Zara has done a lot of useful work here in cleaning up the structure and duplications. Unfortunately, the article remains heavily unbalanced toward the negative. The renamed paragraph “Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections” is now liberally sprinkled with fact tags, despite all the sources I provided. The effectiveness of silver-treated dressings is still being downplayed, despite lots of reliable evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile the word “argyria” still appears 20 times in the latest version. I therefore continue to believe that the negative aspects of drinking colloidal silver have UNDUE weight at present, and that the proven positive aspects should be given more weight in the article, in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV. I will therefore add this material myself, with full references from reliable sources. Wdford (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wdford, I don't know how you can describe this article as "heavily unbalanced". There might be a few statements one could talk about, but there is no valid reason for such heavy criticism. If you think that, you should at least try to substantiate your view with a few links an quotes. Also it isn't necessary to continue working on this article with another series of long edits - so far I haven't actually added a new source to the article ever, but you are bringing in some more which we would have to discuss. Zara1709 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have described my concerns re the balance several times, including above. I am now adding the extra balance required, using reliable sources. If anybody disagrees with any particular source, please say so. Otherwise, I accept Zara's revised structure, but we need to have more reliable material on the positive aspects to balance the present slant toward the negative. Wdford (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I would have done a few more edits to the article myself a short while ago, but since this is a controversially discussed article, I've limited myself to the minim that was necessary to dissolve the section merged here. I would ask you to limit yourself to a discussable amount of edits, too, so that we have time to discuss them here. Otherwise we are risking another confrontation. Zara1709 (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy with the bulk of the work you did today, but more is required. As you could see from the history file, my edits thusfar have been copyedits, and adding a bit of extra info from existing sources and a few new sources to expand the existing points for better clarity. Anybody could readily scroll through the history file to evaluate those changes, and to confirm a handful of new references. What remains is the lead section, which I have agreed all along to leave until last, and the section on wound treatments, which to me is the area most needing more balance. I intend to add some extra material from the sources I listed previously on the talk page. You have already seen these sources, and you can readily check the one's I add as I go along - as I did with your recent rewrite. If you have a disagreement on anything at all then bring it to the talk page ASAP, and I will respond ASAP as well. That way no confrontaion is needed, and none need occur. Agreed? Wdford (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wdford, I need time to review your edits and I need time to consider possible corrections. And every new source you bring in adds between 5 and 20 minutes of reading. I am a fast reader, but I want to make sure that I understand a source sufficiently (and I am not a medical expert). If you want to avoid the risk of a confrontation, you need to give me the necessary time, and I don't think that I can find much more time for Wikipedia tonight. See you tomorrow. Zara1709 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on the wounds section off-line, and only upload it tomorrow night. What time-zone are you in? Wdford (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So, I fixed what I noticed as problems with your edit: 1) You should really take a look at the technical aspects of Citing sources and learn how to create one reference for multiple citations. Otherwise you always need someone who look over your edits and merges the references. 2) We have an nice short paragraph on Argyria and other toxic effects of silver in the "Biological effects of silver" section. We need some more material on the risk of these toxic effects, but that material would belong after that paragraph (or probably before it). The way you did add that info diff, it broke the reading flow.
 * Also, concerning one of your comments above: I did not "liberally sprinkle" the section Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections "with fact tags", I used a [verification needed]-tag, because the articles that are referred to in that section are not available for free, and my university's library hasn't bought a license for them. So, since I can't read them, I can't reword the sentences that are referring to these articles. Someone has to do that, but this can only be done by someone who has access to the medical literature. As soon as we're at least halfway done with these discussions, I'll add an expert needed template to the article and try to get someone over here, who has access to these sources. Zara1709 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have added a bit more on the relative (non)-toxicity of colloidal silver etc, as requested. It turns out you really need to glug the stuff to get sick. Re the verification tags, you can get the abstract for free by clicking on either the "Science Direct" or the "Burns" links provided at that reference - I guess the sponsors need to get their money's worth as well. The abstract says "The gold standard in topical burn treatment is silver sulfadiazine (Ag-SD), a useful antibacterial agent for burn wound treatment", and seems to focus on the trade off between having a slower healing process with silver or a faster healing process (or no healing at all) with an antibiotic. I will anyway add other sources as well, so we are not dependent on just this one. I will look into the referencing thing - thanks for the tip. Wdford (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Institute for Optimum Nutrition
I've removed a bit sourced to the Institute for Optimum Nutrition as, although it labels itself as a not for profit educational charity, it seems to be a promotional website and therefor not WP:RS. Please avoid use of non-reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Institute for Optimum Nutrition is not a promotional website, its a recognised educational institution accredited by the University of Bedfordshire (in the UK). Their nutrition diploma is validated by the British Association of Nutritional Therapists . They consult to the British government on nutritional matters, and they don't sell any particular products or brands. An educational institution that specialises in the nutrition field and which operates under the wing of a university would be considered a reliable source for nutritional information. Things ain't always what they "seems to be". Wdford (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of the BANT sounds disturbingly similar to the AANC which awards fraudulent diplomas to, among others, Gillian McKeith and Ben Goldacre,s dead cat. Apparently they're legit, unlike their American counterparts. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I think I have do to at least a partial revert of your edits. The discussion about the Institute for Optimum Nutrition is still pending, and whereas I think that some reword would probably be justified to take concern about the reliability of that source in account (Fung & Bowden say more on that point, and they are certainly a reliable source) with your second edit you brought in at least one other source which is even more problematic: You added an article about Ionic Silver from a website www.thenhf.com. First, the article quotes remarkably little in the way of academic literary, which is rather problematic, considering the exceptional claims it makes. More importantly, the site from which you have the article also includes viewpoints on Fluoridation and Vaccinations. Now, whereas I personally do feel that the WP article Water fluoridation understated the opposition to water fluoridation when it was recently featured and I've been following the controversy on swine fly vaccination closely, I know that an organization that takes a viewpoint on these issues is, quite often, not a reliable source. Since I don't think that we need to use material from their homepage as a source (everything that they say should also be found in medical journals), I am asking you to justify why you want to use that source, and until then, since we still need to discuss the other source, I am restoring the previous version.Zara1709 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the NHF and ION material - for now. I personally don't see why we should reject the work of a panel of registered medical specialists merely because they have expressed concerns about flouridation. Second, they are not making "exceptional claims" - we also now have a number of other sources that all report that silver dressings are routinely used for treating external wounds, including your Chopra. The references I provided re ION esp.their accreditation with a university should be more than sufficient to establish their reliability. I restored all the rest - there is no justification for mass-reverting many valid edits because of disagreement over two disputed sources. Wdford (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Institute for Optimum Nutrition is not a good enough source for medical information. Running a course accredited by a minor university is not particularly impressive. We should be using peer reviewed papers in major journals, NHS info and the like. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It really depends how exceptional of a claim it is backing up. If its backing up a relatively minor claim about nutrition, it more than meets WP:RS -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Expert needed
As I've said that previously, I am going to flag the article with *Expert needed*. Using reliable web sources, free article abstracts and publicly accessible articles in medical journals, you can only work on the article up to a certain point. If we haven't reached that point already, we're approaching it rather fast. I mean, we certainly have a lot of sources. We could easily find many more, using google, but we shouldn't do that. Why? Because we don't need as many sources as possible, but only the most reputable sources. We don't need to fill in the fact from 20 different sources, if we have 5 sources that say the same. Only when we're dealing with specific facts (which aren't covered in the 5 most reputable sources), we need specific sources. Aside from that, I also helps the readers if they have a literature section which helps them to identify further reading material, instead of a long list of references.

The problem here is that the most reputable sources are medical journal articles, to which only experts from the medical professions have easy access. (Theoretically I could get them, too, but that would require some money and quite a lot of effort.) So, instead of spending another 1-2 hours trying to extract some facts from the sources we are having access to, I'll rather spent that time trying to get someone over here who has access to the medical journals. I'll put up the tag now, and latest by tomorrow I'll write a notice at an appropriate Wiki-Project. Zara1709 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK with me.
 * Three issues remain from my side; 1) Is it really appropriate to have the nanomaterials box on this article? The article does mention nanoparticles, but its not really an article about nanomaterials as such. 2) Do we really need the extended explanation of argyria in the "Biological effects of silver" section? Argyria has its own article - should we not shorten this paragraph, and let interested readers follow the link if they want detailed info? 3) The lead section currently consists of 3 lines on the valid uses of silver, and 8 lines on colloidal silver. I'm sure the colloidal paragraph can be streamlined somewhat, and a bit of a rewrite of the first paragraph is also needed to better explain the positive benefits (e.g. the first use mentioned in the first sentence is disinfectant, which is not really silver's most valuable medical use.) Wdford (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Documentation needed on the claim "silver is adviced against"
Is there really any large collective or substantial body of work anywhere that advises against the use of silver in medicine? Where is the documentation for that? the article also says that there have no been no clinical studies made of either beneficial or adverse effects. How could a collective or substantial body of scientific work advice against that being so? Nunamiut (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"medical authorities advise against the use of these silver preparations because of their ineffectiveness and potential toxicity" Hm. With no deaths (one alleged death) and no adverse effects documented except skin discoloration in a extremely few and cases of extreme consumption, how can there be warnings of potential toxicity? How can there even be said to be a potential for toxicity? This is not scientific. It's excuses for not being scientific, as in academically dishonest attempts to escape facts and real science.Nunamiut (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a brief refresher on the concept of toxicity would be useful, at least as the word is generally applied to medical questions. The toxicity of a drug is generally considered together with its effectiveness; the two can't be easily divorced if one is trying to be - what's the phrase you used? - academically honest. For example, cisplatin is a highly toxic drug, but if you have testicular cancer, then it can save your life - so in that circumstance the toxicity would generally be considered acceptable. On the other hand, if a substance is completely lacking any evidence of effectiveness for any condition - as colloidal silver is - then any toxicity is excessive, because there is nothing to counterbalance it on the other side of the risk/benefit equation. Thus, medical authorities can, and do, reasonably advise against the use of colloidal silver due to the combination of its lack of efficacy and its known toxicity. Argyria is not a life-threatening condition, but it is generally irreversible. Most people would consider the prospect of being permanently dyed a blue-gray color to be a bit off-putting. In any case, it's excessive toxicity in view of the fact that colloidal silver lacks any evidence of effectiveness. More to the point, it's neither here nor there what our personal opinions are about "real science". Major medical groups, including one dedicated to the study of alternative medicine from a viewpoint that is generally considered sympathetic, have advised against the use of colloidal silver because of its lack of efficacy and its toxicity. You asked for sources and they've been provided. If you have further concrete content issues to discuss, let's do so. If you just want to vent on the subject, then this isn't the right venue. MastCell Talk 03:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I still have an issue with the NCCAM source. I cannot get over the fact that we use a beat-around-the-bush review to cite a pretty extraordinary claim. Should be cited to a medical journal IMO.
 * Also a question on your changes Mastcell. You changed "the collective weight of medical literature" to the "medical authorities"... Which sounds kind of strange and seems to water down the more detailed sentence that indicates that most medical literature (but not all) advises against its use, on top of begging the question Who is this medical authority? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  04:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the NCCAM source (and the Sloan-Kettering source, for that matter) are in keeping with sourcing guidelines. The problem with individual journal articles is that they are primary sources - they can be interpreted, selected, and cherry-picked. We need to know how experts in the field have weighed and synthesized the available medica literature. That's where I see the NCCAM and Sloan-Kettering sources coming in. As to the wording, I thought it was perhaps a bit more precise than its predecessor, but I'm sure it can be improved further. My thought was that the citations immediately following the sentence would clarify the medical authorities in question, but I see your point about the phrasing leading the reader to ask who the "authorities" are. MastCell Talk 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems more like wordplay than any kind of clarification. The common use of the word "toxic" generally refers to the (a) level of serious harm any substance can do to any given human or living being. Ingestion of any product in excessive quantities is toxic in the sense given the term here and gives no sensible meaning to useful information by any standards. I was under the impression that this is not a medical dissertation, it's public information. Don't we have to / should we not rather adhere to some standards and levels of comprehensibility that is useful to the general public? And for the record: I am interested in how information is presented, an not interested in any accusations or speculation on what my intentions are. Nunamiut (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We should adhere to whatever is contained in the best, most accurate, most reliable sources (as defined here and here). NCCAM (for example) states that the use of colloidal silver is "unsupported scientifically", and that "colloidal silver products can have serious side effects." Would you prefer that wording? MastCell Talk 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember we are writing for the public, not doctors. Yes we should source from reliable sources. No, we shouldn't use them word for word. These things should be described as you have described them. It is considered toxic because there is no confirmed medical value to offset the side effects it presents. I known journal entries can be selectively picked, but reviews can do the same thing. If we do use a review, it should cite the first-party publications that it gets its information from. Why has NCCAM concluded what it has? Because they read 50 pieces of literature on the subject and formed a neutral conclusion, or because they give the results that their funders wish them to?
 * The point is, for NCCAM to be reliable, it should show the same level of sourcing as we do. Instead, they provide a partial list of sources. Hardly appropriate. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NCCAM is funded by the U.S. government. I'm not sure what bias you think that gives them. I can tell you that NCCAM's initial incarnation, as the Office of Alternative Medicine, was generally perceived as oversympathetic to alternative medicine at the expense of scientific rigor. That is probably less of an issue with subsequent changes in leadership. Reviews do, of course, selectively use the primary literature (that is essentially their purpose). The point is that a review by a reputable, expert source is likely to reflect expert opinion, whereas a review by an anonymous Wikipedian perhaps does not. That's why we accept syntheses from bodies like NCCAM which we would dismiss as WP:OR if put forth by an anonymous Wikipedian. NCCAM's reliability stems from its position as one of the largest, most reputable bodies to focus on the scientific assessment of alternative medicine, not from its compliance with Wikipedia sourcing policies. MastCell Talk 17:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also at the end of a lot of allegations of fraud. I'm sure we can find something better to replace it, such as a review in a reputable medical journal. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where has NCCAM been credibly accused of "fraud"? I'm not sure we'll find a review article to replace it - I've looked multiple times at the reputable medical literature on the subject, and what you see in the article is what I've turned up - but I'd certainly welcome any additional reliable sources. I'm not sure that a review article is superior to a clear statement from a reputable national expert body on the subject, though they may of course be complementary. MastCell Talk 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of articles are out there about how they've spent millions of dollars in funding and have yet to produce anything useful, including the quackwatch one above (and I know quackwatch is referenced by several articles and is considered more notable and reliable than NCCAM). All they do is draw the same conclusions as already exist. I want to know what makes them credible, because being funded by the government certainly isn't an immediate qualifier for reliability. If anything its quite often a qualifier for false and misleading half-truths. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be more useful to have specific references to discuss. NCCAM has produced something useful - it has tested a number of alternative remedies and found none to be effective for the tested indications. It has not produced any positive results, but that isn't an indication of failure - the goal was to apply rigorous scientific methods to alternative medicine, which they (more recently) have done. They've also funded a lot of research that groups like Quackwatch probably consider a priori ridiculous, but that's a separate issue. MastCell Talk 20:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the usage of colloidal silver has any beneficial medical effects, and I never have, and never will, until scientific studies have been made. I'm arguing that the information is misleading since no scientific medical studies have been made, as the article itself clearly states. And yes, I would prefer that change to the statements since its clear that ingesting excessive colloidal silver does have serious side effects. Very few people wish to turn grey or have their skin discoloured, yes. By the way, doesnt the FDA state that the levels of silver normally used in and associated with commercial or privately made colloidal silver are so ridiculously low that they are on a par with the distilled water homeopathy uses, i.e. just like pure water?Nunamiut (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does the FDA say that? My impression is that FDA states that the silver content of "colloidal silver" products is non-standardized, unregulated, and varies widely and unpredictably, like the contents of most dietary supplements marketed in the US, but I'm willing to be corrected if you have a source. MastCell Talk 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If quackwatch is considered acceptable here, exists. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, quoting web pages is ok, if they are a reliable sources. However, I did flag this article with *Expert needed* for a reason. Reliable web sources are acceptable, but academic journals are nearly always better. If we want to have a good article some day, we have to switch from quoting web sources to quoting medical articles at some point. Zara1709 (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I've already added citations to essentially every medical article on colloidal silver that I could find in reputable medical journals in the modern era. That avenue is tapped out, at least as far as I can see. Experts can't create new sources; I hope someone can find some reliable medical articles I've missed, but I did a pretty exhaustive search. We should base this article on reliable secondary sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. That includes both reputable journal articles as well as statements from recognized expert bodies. We can use reasonably reliable websites as supporting info, but they should not form the basis of the article. Textbooks and articles from 1913 should definitely not be cited in anything beyond a purely historical context (all of these seem intuitively obvious, but for some reason require repeated assertion). MastCell Talk 17:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford's counter edits
Wdford, you wrote in the edit summary "streamlined and rebalanced the lead, as proposed on the talk page with no objection", which only is try because I didn't have that much time to for Wikipedia the last few days. If you had read what I've written on this talk page or taken a look at my edits, you would have known that I would disagree at least with some of your edits, BECAUSE YOU RESTORED AN EDIT WHICH I HAD CHANGED BACK PREVIOUSLY. I even gave you an explanation of that change here, and you said that you were agreeing to it. What are you trying to pull of here? Do you want to sneak back and restore your edit to the article, while I am not looking? Your edit summaries didn't say that you also removed some important information on argyria from the article and from the lead. I'll have to go with a full revert. Zara1709 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I note with sadness that Zara continues to cling to her program of focusing the article on colloidal silver and argyria, despite all the reliable sources I have quoted that state a different balance. Despite a week-long effort to have a discussion on these issues, I am still accused of trying to "sneak" edits through. However I am still waiting for a justification why this article should include such a lot of detail on argyria, when the risk of argyria is clearly so small and when argyria has its own article that could easily be linked. I am also waiting for a justification why colloidal silver and argyria need to get so much weight in the lead, when the reliable sources downplay the risks of argyria and instead strongly support the medical uses of silver in other life-saving applications. I would like to add to the justification list please an explanation why my reference to FDA-approval was deleted (what more reliable source is there?) and why my reference to the ATSDR statement was deleted (what more reliable source is there?) in favour of sources and material that emphasise the negative, and a line saying people in the 1950's felt socially debilitated? Wdford (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, you replaced several statements that were sourced to medical journals with a statement sourced to a web page. That web page looks like a reliable source, but we don't need to use it there, since we are already using the medical journals. Edits are supposed to improve the article, not make it worse - of course I had to revert that edit. Zara1709 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is likely due to the conflation of colloidal silver with approved medical use of silver, a decision which I opposed but probably not strongly enough. The literature on silver's toxicity and effectiveness is based largely or wholely on approved medical uses of regulated pharmaceutical products and devices. It should not be implied that this literature extends to colloidal silver as it is marketed in the alternative-medical arena - the same sorts of reliable sources that approve the regulated use of silver products also warn against the use of colloidal silver. If we can't manage to make this distinction clear, for whatever reason, then we should go back to separate articles. MastCell Talk 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If we can't make this distinction because editors refuse to agree on a distinction, then I don't believe that is grounds to split the article backwards, only grounds to send those authors to conflict resolution, or to bring in a mediator. We're not here to serve the editors.
 * Also, just to throw my 2 cents in, I think (while it took out a few key points and accompanying sources that should not be removed) that from a readers perspective that Wdford's lead flows much better. I would prefer to build with it and add back the missing information to that. The current version makes sense, but seems to jump back and forth a slight bit. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see it as violating basic content policy to take research on silver-impregnated catheters or silver sulfadiazine and imply that it extends to colloidal silver, when the authors don't even mention colloidal silver. It's original synthesis at best, and misleading at worst. It's not about editors agreeing on a distinction. The distinction is there, and it violates policy to pretend that it doesn't exist, or to blur it. MastCell Talk 18:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, I agree that there is a clear distinction and that it should be made. I said that he removed a few key points, one of those being to clearly separate the legitimate uses from the non-legitimate. The lead should summarize the article that exists below it, properly weighted. It should equally mention the benefits of the catheters and silver sulfadiazine, as it should the history of silver in medicine, as it should mention the purported uses of colloidal silver as a modern cure-all, as it should the reality. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree - as long as the article is broadly titled, the lead should talk about silver-impregnated catheters, silver sulfadiazine, and other mainstream uses of silver in medicine (along with a couple of sentences on colloidal silver). MastCell Talk 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the literature on silver’s toxicity is based “largely or wholly on approved medical uses of regulated pharmaceutical products and devices.” The ATSDR summary clearly includes the event of people drinking silver as well as breathing it in and a host of non-medical exposures. It also clearly concludes that you need a huge amount of exposure in order to get sick. There is no conflation or synthesis here.

Zara prefers to refer to “medical journals”, but the information disseminated by the ATSDR is based on a review of ALL medical journals, and exactly as I said in my edit comment, the ATSDR info is thus more general than individual medical study reports. Using the ATSDR info thus reduces the risk of bias in any particular individual study, which is a concern since we seem to be a bit restricted in exactly which reports we reference here. I can’t accept Zara’s excuse that referencing the ATSDR website makes the article worse – those guys are the experts, and they are fully informed.

I am fully supportive of the efforts to distinguish between the FDA-approved medical usage and the snake-oil remedies, and my lead section preserved two distinct paragraphs for that reason. My concern is not to white-wash snake-oil, but merely to get some balance into the lead that more appropriately weights the article toward treatments that save tens of thousands of lives rather than just the repetitive emphasis on a few hundred cases of agyria ever in history, and most of those probably due to working in silver mines and refineries rather than drinking colloidal silver, which contains way less than the dangerous dosage anyway. All I ask for is balance. Wdford (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
Totally aside from the long standing and bitter controversy surrounding this article, this thing is a mess (actually, I suspect that this is partly due to the controversy). Come on: two definitions of argyria in the intro? The hideous first sentence "The medical uses of silver include as an antiseptic and a disinfectant" (might it not be better to say "the element silver (Ag) is used as an antiseptic and disinfectant", or some other statement less offending to the english language)? This article, especially the intoduction, needs someone to form it into prose that doesn't hurt to read. And it's not going to be me cleaning up the mess that other editors have made in their efforts to advance their own viewpoint. It's not just that I think the ones who mutilated this article should be the ones to put it back together again. I'm also scared that if I change so much as a comma, someone's going to start a diatribe against me. So instead I'll vent my frustration on this talk page without putting in any real effort to improve the article. I know I'm sounding critical and being unhelpful, but the editors of this article need to know that the quality of this article is low, and that simply inserting sentances in random places that support your view isn't helping.Buddy431 (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. We don't need two definitions of argyria in the lead paragraph, and that is an obvious problem. I should have tried to explain that to Wdford, but after two weeks or more of fighting, I got bored. Just look at Wdford's last comment. Apparently he has never read "wp:rs", which says:


 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.


 * Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.


 * The ATSDR Information Center is one of these tertiary sources. And to use it as a source for a definition of argyria is sub-optimal, because it doesn't discuss the occurrence of argyria as a side-effect of colloidal silver prescriptions in the 1930s and 1940s. Why should it? It is an overview aimed at a contemporary audience outside the medical professions, and for that audience that information can be considered of low importance. Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, are aimed at a general audience. And if we have an article "Medical uses of silver" (or "Colloidal silver" for that matter), the information that colloidal silver was used as a conventional medication in the 1930s and '40s, and that the use was discontinued because of a lack of effectiveness and the side-effect of argyria is rather important (and belongs into the lead paragraph). We can probably still use the ATSDR source somewhere in the article, but I'll have to remove it from the lead paragraph. Zara1709 (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So, my last edits should have taken care of the most urgent issues. We still need to discuss some of Wdford's sources used in the lead paragraph, like this one, which certainly reads like promo-material. But, as I've said previously, I am somehow getting bored of this controversy. Zara1709 (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, we don't need any definitions of argyria at all, as argyria has its own article and this is not it. All we actually need is a mention and a wikilink. However, we live with compromises. We MUST however have balance, and yet again the lead has been cut down in such a way as to overstate the negative - this time the excuse is that the ATSDR is only a "tertiary source". (Although I see the NCCAM is happily quoted in the lead as a "medical authority".) I have therefore inserted the necessary balance with a primary source as reference. I have also further cleaned up some wording, to avoid misinterpretations. We will see what comes next. Wdford (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I don't know what you attempted with your last edit, but you must have made an error using cut&paste or that like. And of course this article needs to get into the details of argyria, unless you want to create a separate article on colloidal silver again. The reputable secondary sources on colloidal silver, which I identified a few weeks ago, discuss argyria in detail, and so has Wikipedia. 'Balance' is not some sort of compromise between editors with different POVs, but a treatment of the article topic based on reliable (secondary) sources. If you want to have a discussion on balance in this article, you better learn how to substantiate your edits with an argument based on reliable sources: You should probably start by reading our policy wp:rs and familiarize yourself with "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources". If you don't want to learn how to discuss an issue based on reliable sources, I can only ask you to let us work on the article alone - there must be enough other articles that you can work on and which aren't that complicated. Zara1709 (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When you already have an article on argyria, you don't need to reproduce all the material in every related article, you simply link it - that's the whole point of wikipedia. My argument for balance is based on the huge amount of literature that supports using silver in various medical applications, versus your repeated emphasis on colloidal silver and argyria - which your own sources admit is a minimal risk anyway. And if ATSDR is not good enough for the lead, then neither is NCCAM - agreed? Wdford (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, have you read the article "in vitro" once? In vitro results are quite different from in vivo results - you cannot simply add: "..., as well as in external wounds in living tissue" after "in vitro". And although we do have sufficient literature that discusses the use of silver in "medical applications", no one is disputing that and we also have sufficient literature that discusses and criticizes colloidal silver preparations. Now we need to discuss the weight that each of these points needs to be given in the introductory paragraph,and we don't need to emphasise that the "clinical exposure" to silver involves "minimal risk", it is fully sufficient to say that "Physicians use" wound dressing containing silver etc. - if the side-effects were too grave, physicians wouldn't use that stuff. Now stop making a mess of the lead paragraph and start with justifying why you want to use promotional articles as sources there, because one could question their reliability, but so far I simply was nice enough not to remove them. Zara1709 (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care about the Flat Glass website - I never added that source to the article, I just found it there already and continued to use it. If it will make you feel better than delete the thing - there are other references that support that point. I am fully aware that "in vivo" means something different from "in vitro". However your continued insistence on including the term "in vitro" implies that silver is ONLY effective in vitro, which is clearly misleading, seeing as how we have lots of references that clarify the effectiveness of silver in treating wounds. I would prefer to drop the entire point from the lead, but if you must include the phrase "in vitro" then we should also add the clause about wounds as well - for balance. If you insist that we must include a discussion of argyria in the lead, based on one source that expressed concern about its possible toxicity, then balance requires that we include other reliable sources that state extremely clearly that the health risk is actually minimal, and that argyria itself only occurs in people who consume huge amounts of silver - usually from contact other than colloidal silver, and even in colloidal cases its usually home-brewed stuff rather than from commercial products. That would present a BALANCED view of the risks - such as they are. I am concerned that you repeatedly strive to create a negative impression of medical silver, when the evidence on medical silver is overwhelmingly positive. This reality should be clearly visible in the lead section as well. Wdford (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems I edited in the middle of a dispute :-) Anyway, I've changed that first sentence which read poorly - we don't need to be hung-up on bolding a title such as this one. Also added a couple links. The lead is for summarizing the article content, not for reproducing all the arguments, keep it concise and save most of the refs for the body (ideally the refs belong in the body rather than the lead). Vsmith (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we please ban Wdford from this topic?
I've had enough of this and created another thread at the ANI about it. Just look at Wdford's recent edits. His version says:


 * All silver-based products are contra-indicated for people who are allergic to silver.[6] Fung and Bowen also point out that “Indiscriminate use of silver products can lead to toxicity such as argyria.”[8] Argyria is a condition in which the skin irreversibly turns blue or grey (from accumulated silver), which can be socially debilitating but which is not otherwise harmful. However, per Lansdown, “Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route. Chronic ingestion or inhalation of silver preparations (especially colloidal silver) can lead to deposition of silver metal/silver sulphide particles in the skin (argyria), eye (argyrosis) and other organs

Take a short look at the abstracts of these two articles: Lansdown (2006) is only talking about silver used in "water purification, wound care, bone prostheses, reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, cardiac devices, catheters and surgical appliances." Fung & Bowden (1996), on the other hand, are only talking about "oral colloidal silver proteins as mineral supplements and for prevention and treatment of many diseases". Wdford is actually failing to see that these two sources are talking about two different things. Even someone who only spend 10 minutes reading the abstracts should realize this, but Wdford has actually been working on the article for about two weeks or so (with another two week break). I can only see two reasons for his failure to differentiate these two points. Either 1) he is utterly incompetent or 2) in his specific view of the topic his is unable to make this distinction, meaning in short: He is a POV-Warrior.

In any case, he has nothing left do to at this article. Since he previously never admitted that he was wrong, and only accepted criticism in the form of saying something like: "well, I still disagree, but since you are forcing me...", I think that any further discussion would be futile. If we don't want to give up on this article (and leave it to the tendentious editing of Wdford), sooner or later we will have to ban him from the topic. The sooner, the easier it will be for all involved. Zara1709 (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What absolute rubbish. As Zara's own quote of the abstract clearly shows, Lansdown clearly says that silver has minimal risk even due to "ingestion", and that only "Chronic ingestion" etc can lead to argyria. Lansdown thus clearly includes swallowing silver in his summary, and I have thus used the sources perfectly correctly. This is an exact quote - there is no Synthesis here, and I have not interpreted it at all. I also quoted F&B correctly, and my only variation from Zara's usage was to include F&B's own use of the word "indiscriminate", to make it clear that one cannot get argyria from a small amount of colloidal silver. Re part two, I clearly have lots still to do at this article, namely trying to ensure the material is balanced, that the content complies with wikipolicy re balance and objectivity, and that the broadened scope continues to be respected rather than the article being dragged back to focus only on colloidal silver and argyria. Wdford (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another full revert
Zara continues to commit full reverts of valid and reliably-sourced material, on paper-thin grounds. Her latest excuse was that a reference was mis-applied. However the abstract of the article quoted is most very certainly talking about colloidal silver. Lansdown actually mentions colloidal silver by name. In fact, to quote Lansdown exactly: "Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route. Chronic ingestion or inhalation of silver preparations (especially colloidal silver) can lead to deposition of silver metal/silver sulphide particles in the skin (argyria), eye (argyrosis) and other organs. These are not life-threatening conditions but cosmetically undesirable. " Without a doubt Lansdown was including colloidal silver in that abstract.

Zara claims that it is necessary to warn about the risk of argyria, yet the wording she keeps reverting to consistently hides the fact that the risk is minimal and that the safe daily dose is substantial. (per the EPA, 5 micrograms (µg) of silver per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day (5 µg/kg/day) - about 350 µg of silver per day for a 70 kg person, or 7 teaspoons at 10ppm per day every day for life, which is over a litre per month.”

Since the Lansdown reference is clearly attributable to ALL forms of silver, and since the current wording omits to clarify that the risk of argyria is slight, I am undoing Zara's latest full revert.

In fact, Zara's repeated insistence on giving undue weight to the negative side in the face of many reliable sources is becoming Tendentious Editing as per WP:TE.

Wdford (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And now yet another mass revert, this time deleting useful additions by another editor as well in the groundless drive to maintain the undue negative weighting in the lead. I say yet again, in response to accusations that I don't justify my edits, that if toxicity is important enough to appear in the lead at all, then its important enough to be dealt with fairly and objectively. I will supply even better references to support the EPA safe dosage, and I have no problems with MastCell's various other improvements to the wording. Zara has no valid basis to repeatedly revert a lot of valid and referenced material. Wdford (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet another mass revert once again. My argument is utterly straightforward, and I have made it many times already since I started working on this article, but Zara chooses to pretend otherwise. Here it is yet again:
 * This article is about ALL the medical uses of silver, not just colloidal silver, and the lead should reflect this broad scope with due weighting to ALL the different aspects.
 * Silver has many different valuable medical uses, while colloidal silver is only one aspect. This should be reflected by due weight.
 * When it comes to mentioning the toxicity of silver, be it re colloidal silver and other forms, per policy the lead must summarise all aspects objectively and with due weight. To mention argyria three times in the lead, without actually putting argyria in context or clarifying the actual risk, does not constitute due weight.
 * Zara's arguments for suppressing the fact that silver is minimally toxic do not hold water - a couple of extra lines to clarify the very important safety aspect is well justified in an aticle of this nature, which some people continue to believe is a "controversial" subject.


 * Instead of repeated mass reverts, why doesn't Zara accept that the valid and reliably referenced material is valid and reliably referenced, and work constructively with others to finish it off?


 * If Zara agrees to mention argyria only once in the lead, with a wikilink, and leave the rest of it to the body of the article, then I am happy to streamline the rest of the lead likewise. However, if Zara insists on padding up the lead of this article with repeated mentions of argyria, then proper context is necessary and appropriate.


 * If other editors agree to split off a separate article dedicated to colloidal silver, the EPA safe dosage would still need to be included.


 * As we appear to have reached consensus on everything else, I will request some admins specifically to mediate on these remaining issues.


 * Wdford (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I've taken a brief look through this following a 3RR report. I know nothing about the issue and have no suggestions to make in terms of direction, but in terms of policies, the best thing would be to stop relying on primary sources (individual studies) and rely only on secondary sources who have discussed the science. That would stop the arguments about what study X meant, or what weight should be given to it. See WP:NOR about the importance of relying on secondary sources, and not interpreting primary sources ourselves. SlimVirgin 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Following on from the 3rr report, I have protected the page for 6 days to allow for some proper discussion here or at medcab rather than just mass reverting back and forth. Moreschi (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most of the dispute centers around colloidal silver (the article previously dealt solely with colloidal silver, and was recently broadened and retitled to cover all uses of silver in medicine). As a starting point, it's probably worth defining what reliable secondary sources have to say on the topic. Here is what I've found:
 * National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
 * U.S. Food and Drug Administration
 * M. D. Anderson Cancer Center
 * Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
 * Australian Therapeutic Goods Association
 * These are all unanimous in emphasizing the lack of effectiveness and the potential toxicity (in the form of argyria) associated with colloidal silver. I object to what I see as an effort to "rebut" or undermine these unequivocal and unanimous statements from reliable expert bodies by arranging and contextomizing various primary sources, individual studies, textbooks from 1913, and research on legitimately effective forms of silver (e.g. silver sulfadiazine). I particularly object to this sort of editing. Notice that it cites an FDA document which clearly states: "Based on the available scientific information, FDA is not able to advise consumers of a dose or use restrictions that would minimize or eliminate the risk of argyria." But how do we use this reference? Yes - to advise consumers of a supposedly "safe" dose of colloidal silver, using this additional reference to drive home the editorial synthesis. That's a particular pet peeve of mine, but in any case, perhaps we could start with the list of reliable secondary sources and expert bodies I've given above? Are there other similarly expert bodies which have published differing conclusions on colloidal silver? MastCell Talk 19:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very happy to rely on these “secondary sources” – it wasn't me who decided that a “quality” article required us to use only “medical journals.” [|see here]. I was the one who defended using these expert bodies, but nobody supported me at the time.


 * I do note however that you are omitting those organisations that point out that ingesting silver is potentially toxic, but not very toxic, such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)  and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I do think that this info should also be included, in order to show the true picture. I have never tried to claim that drinking colloidal silver is harmless, but I think its also appropriate to point out that ingested silver is barely toxic, that only those who overdose hugely and for extended periods are actually at risk of getting argyria, and that colloidal silver is actually much less harmful than tobacco.


 * I would like to clarify that I never "contextomised" sources on legitimate usages of silver to rebut statements about colloidal silver - the Lansdown report clearly refers to colloidal silver as well, and makes it clear that ingested silver is only toxic in "chronic" quantities.


 * I would like to suggest that this aspect of the article be broadened to highlight that many so-called "colloidal silver treatments" don't actually contain silver at all - they are outright frauds. That would be more helpful than generalising. It would also be helpful to clarify that those persons who did get argyria from deliberately drinking colloidal silver were frequently using home-brewed stuff with silver contents way above the EPA safe-dosage.


 * Re your particular pet peeve – the “safe dosage” in question was officially calculated and communicated by the EPA, who are a reliable source on the subject. The FDA didn’t bother to reinvent the wheel, they merely quoted the EPA figure in their own literature – in other words, they endorsed that info. I quoted the FDA source originally because it was easier for a layman to read, but since this apparently peeves people I replaced it with the original EPA source. This then promptly got deleted on the grounds that it was a “fringe theory” – can you believe that the EPA is now disseminating fringe theories? And I was labelled a "paid disinformation agent" for my trouble.


 * [] This additional reference was merely included to help people convert between micrograms, teaspoons and parts-per-million – there is no synthesis here, and no grounds for concern.


 * I have no problem with the sources quoted, or with the current content of the article. I also have no problem at all with saying in the lead section that colloidal silver has no proven effectiveness in vivo, and that it is toxic if ingested in massive amounts or if it is chronically overdosed over long periods of time. All I have asked for from the beginning, is that the article is not excessively weighted toward the issue of colloidal silver and its demerits, such that the many valuable usages of silver are undermined.


 * Wdford (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I think your post nicely illustrates where we differ.
 * The article is about medical uses of silver. You're citing the EPA FAQ, which deals primarily with environmental exposure to silver - that is, through drinking water, air pollution, or incidental contamination of medications like anti-smoking lozenges. Read the section on routes of silver exposure in the PDF you cite - they're incidental, environmental exposures. The EPA is of course a reliable source - that's a red herring. The problem is that you're misusing it to rebut medical sources, and to undermine their conclusions. The EPA documents are written from the perspective of limiting exposure to a potentially harmful substance, yet you're using it to encourage people to ingest up to the "safe limit" of silver.
 * Reliable medical sources, including the FDA, indicate that the development of argyria requires sustained or prolonged ingestion of colloidal silver. I have no problem noting this fact. I do have a problem "prescribing" safe doses of colloidal silver for our readers, using an FDA source which says that no such safe dose exists. You needed to cite additional conversion tables and perform additional calculations of your own to tell our readers how much silver they should take - that should be an indication that you're abusing the sources.
 * I think we are agreed that reliable sources say the following: Colloidal silver is currently promoted as a panacea in some alternative-medical circles. There is no evidence that it is effective to prevent or treat any medical condition. Long-term or excessive ingestion carries the risk of argyria, which is disfiguring but not life-threatening. The FDA found that there is not sufficient data to establish a "safe" dose of colloidal silver. Low levels of silver in drinking water or the environment are felt to be safe by the EPA. Silver has a variety of more-or-less accepted uses in medicine, ranging from topical antibiosis (e.g. silver sulfadiazine, silver-impregnated medical devices) to surface disinfection and water purification. Is that a reasonable statement of common ground? MastCell Talk 00:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I am thoroughly happy with your summary in your last paragraph, and I’m sure all will agree that those details have long been included in the article, including in the lead, and that I have never tried to delete them. (Small point - I am not entirely comfortable with the phrase “more-or-less accepted uses”, as these uses have been common practice for some time already, and in many cases are first-choice front line treatments. Some of the sources quoted in the article are a bit out of date.)

Our only difference – as I have been saying all along – is about balance, not content. Wikipolicy WP:YESPOV requires that editors do not take sides. Specifically: ''“The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. …. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view.”'' In other words, it’s not up to us to “warn” people away from colloidal silver. I feel therefore that we need to be a bit more objective than some have preferred so far.

I truly understand your concerns about colloidal silver, and I sympathize with your position, but I simply believe that some of the wording and weighting we have seen along the way leans too heavily against colloidal silver to be considered NPOV. For example, the FDA position does NOT say that “no safe limit exists”, merely that “we the FDA have not yet done the huge amount of expensive homework required to establish what the safe limit is, but our colleagues at the EPA have, and here is their conclusion.” It’s relatively easy for an editor with a POV against silver to word that to read that the FDA condemns silver as a serious poison, which would be misleading to lay readers (i.e. almost all of them). We should also bear in mind that, although nobody has yet proved to the FDA’s satisfaction that colloidal silver is a panacea, nobody has yet proved that it is NOT a panacea. Again, it’s quite easy to create a false impression here. We need to state clearly the position of the authorities – and we have indeed done so – but we need to be neutral and balanced in the process.

Also, the fact that the EPA deals primarily with accidental exposure doesn’t change anything – ingesting silver has the same effect whether you swallowed it unknowingly or on purpose, and the safe limits are the same in either case. Just about anything on earth will kill you if you swallow too much of it, so what we need is to know the safe limits – be it aspirin or silver or Vitamin A or morphine. Including the safe limits here is not the same as “prescribing” that people actually drink the stuff - I’m not trying to encourage people to ingest anything, and I’m not undermining the authorities’ conclusions. I am however of the opinion that a balanced article should state the full position, and that the EPA “safe limit” is valuable information in an article about ingesting substances.

Finally, not many people know what a microgram is, especially in countries that are non-metric, so putting that info into accessible language is surely a good thing for the encyclopaedia? I didn’t twist or synthesise anything, I merely clarified the EPA safe limit in language that average people can relate to. This is not an “abuse of sources”.

I think the lead as it stands is pretty good, but I would like to spend the rest of our six days achieving a consensus that will stand when the protection is lifted. I am personally happy with the first paragraph, but I would like to propose that the second paragraph be reworded to read as follows:


 * “Since the 1990s "colloidal silver", a liquid suspension of microscopic silver particles, has been marketed as an alternative medicine, often claiming impressive cure-all qualities. The effectiveness of these products has never been scientifically proven, and in some jurisdictions it is currently illegal to make such claims. Medical authorities and publications advise against the ingestion of such preparations, because of their lack of proven effectiveness and because of the risk of adverse side effects, such as argyria. Historically, colloidal silver was also used as an internal medication to treat a variety of diseases. In the 1940s they were discontinued due to both the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics and concern about the various side effects of silver products.”

Can we go hopefully forward from here?

Wdford (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "More-or-less accepted": That was my shorthand. Some uses are widely accepted (e.g. silver sulfadiazine in the burn unit). Others are a bit more controversial (e.g. silver-impregnated catheters); they are within the medical mainstream and the subject of substantial published literature, but are not universally accepted.
 * Response: Fair enough. However, please see also, which says “More recently, silver-coated vascular catheters and heart valves have become commonplace because of the element's ability to reduce associated infections.” Wdford (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I interpret WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV a bit differently, I suppose. No, it is not our role to "warn people away" from colloidal silver. However, if NCCAM, the FDA, and every other expert body to comment on the subject has warned people away from colloidal silver, then we need to accurately reflect that, in the interest of basic honesty to the reader. That's not "taking a side"; we are obligated to present these expert viewpoints - which happen to be unanimous. We are taking a side when we as editors water down, "rebut", or undermine these clearly expressed viewpoints.
 * Response: We certainly must accurately reflect expert viewpoints, and without doubt those viewpoints have been accurately reflected in the article all along - repeatedly. I believe my suggested paragraph also addresses this point sufficiently? Wdford (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I recognize that argyria is a risk only with prolonged and/or excessive consumption of colloidal silver. I'm not out to portray it as a deadly poison. I think we will be able to come to some consensus on how to word the FDA/EPA sources.
 * I agree. BTW, the FDA ruling actually says: "All over-the counter (OTC) drug products containing colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for internal or external use are not generally recognized as safe and effective and are misbranded.” Its also interesting (to me, anyway) that the FDA has not banned the sale of colloidal silver as a diet supplement, but only the advertising of cure-all properties - implying that safety is not the concern just false advertising. Or is that just me? Wdford (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Nobody has yet proved that colloidal silver is NOT a panacea": Sure. There are lots of things that people have not yet DISproven, which is why the scientific method doesn't work that way. Medical claims should be subjected to actual testing before they're made. Responsible people and companies do that. No one has proven that Prilosec doesn't whiten teeth and improve libido, but it would be pretty irresponsible to use the lack of negative evidence to advertise it as such. Right? We run the risk of dishonestly reflecting our scientific sources when we make those sorts of arguments.
 * Response: Absolutely correct. And hence we should clearly state that the FDA has ruled that it's illegal for the snake-oil salesmen to advertise colloidal silver as a cure-all because "the effectiveness has not yet been scientifically proven." I am fully happy with that paraphrasing. Wdford (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On EPA limits: it matters. The EPA sets limits on environmental exposure to lead and mercury. That doesn't mean that they recommend ingesting up to the "safe" limit. I'm fine with mentioning the EPA's exposure findings briefly - though they should really be a footnote, since this is an article about medical use of silver, and if there are no medical sources, then we shouldn't be spending a lot of time on it, right? Your analogy actually points this up - safe limits for vitamin A, morphine, aspirin, and even gold (see auranofin) are available from medical sources.
 * Response: Fair enough. However my original reference here was from the FDA, who quoted the EPA conclusion in their own communication. The EPA "safe dose" is also cited in the medical article by Wadhera and Fung |here Wdford (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your proposed lead looks reasonable overall, although I would like a bit of time to catch up on the many iterations this article has gone through, to see if there are any improvements to be found in the page history. MastCell Talk 23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Fine - there is no rush. Please see also my additional comments on each of your points above. Wdford (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Finalising the lead section
Is it really necessary or appropriate to have a detailed discussion of argyria in the lead section of this article? Since argyria has its own article, (as well as a detailed discussion in the body of this article), would the lead section of this article not be improved by merely mentioning argyia as a potential side effect of silver ingestion, with a wikilink to its own article for those who want the full details? Wdford (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with a briefer definition, or just a wikilink, in the lead. The body of the article should probably contain a bit more detail, but I agree it's probably overkill given the current balance of the lead. MastCell Talk 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a mention of it, seeing as the rest of the article contains detailed information. Equally put with colloidal silver. If CS gets mention in the lead, every medical use of silver must also get equal mention in the lead, or this article is not NPOV. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. May I then propose that the second paragraph of the lead section be reworded as follows:
 * “Since the 1990s "colloidal silver", a liquid suspension of microscopic silver particles, has been marketed as an alternative medicine, often claiming impressive "cure-all" qualities. The effectiveness of these products has never been scientifically proven, and in some jurisdictions it is therefore currently illegal to include such claims in product advertisements. Medical authorities and publications advise against the ingestion of colloidal silver preparations, because of their lack of proven effectiveness and because of the risk of adverse side effects, such as argyria. Historically, colloidal silver was also used as an internal medication to treat a variety of diseases. Their use was largely discontinued in the 1940s, due to the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics and concern about adverse side effects.”
 * Would there be any objections to using this wording? Wdford (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. MastCell Talk 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good here. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look fine to me. The reason clinicals are not available is because the FDA will not conduct or approve studies on colloidal silver for medical use. The statement that there is no clinical evidence that silver has microbial properties is very much substantiated. Unfortunately, these studies fall on deaf ears or are railroaded off public forums. There is a medical application used by Kaiser hospital called a Sponge VAC that is recognized for it's antimicrobial properties. Why isn't this allowed to remain on this page if it is true? Brionbee (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional applications may be listed as discovered such as Silver Nano particles dispensed in the washing and rinsing cycles of washing machines so that the silver particles sanitize and disinfect fabrics throughout the life of the washing machine to protect your fabrics, and disinfects your drum and all its internal parts. For example see product made by Samsung here http://www.samsung.com/sg/consumer/learningresources/silvernano/silvernano/washingmachine.html. TxSun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.158.75 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)