Talk:Medical uses of silver

Historical use as an antimicrobial agent

I propose reintroducing into the lede the line 'Silver was the most important antimicrobial agent available before the introduction of antibiotics.' This is a true statement, is reliably sourced, and satisfies the Wikipedia Lede style guide MOS:LEAD, in particular... 'It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on', and 'explains why the topic is notable'. It also introduces a fact that is described in the article but at present is entirely absent from the lede.14.2.5.218 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose leaving it exactly as is, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE The proposed line is not a viewpoint. Its just a historical fact - referenced and briefly stated. And anyway, I can't imagine that anyone reading this article is seeing an undue emphasis on the 'positive' aspects of medical silver. Quite the opposite in fact. 14.2.5.218 (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, I am disinclined to take your word on anything, given the above advocacy for whitewashing the lack of safety and efficacy. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You put in endless references that quote each other without realising none of them actually have any clinical research to back their claims. Yet you view any attempt by me to introduce a referenced historical fact as 'whitewashing'. 14.2.5.218 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

References

You put in endless references that quote each other without realising none of them actually have any clinical research to back their claims. Yet you view any attempt by me to introduce a referenced historical fact as 'whitewashing'. 14.2.5.218 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Favourite fallacies of the world of quackery #27: reversal of the burden of proof. Quacks claim that colloidal silver is safe and effective. Reliable reality-based sources say the opposite. Wikipedia prefers the latter, this is a feature not a bug. It's on the quacks to prove their case, not on us to disprove it. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't reversed the burden at all. I haven't tried to remove your references. I just commented that although they are technically 'reliable' they are in fact weak. I could go on and argue that (as your own references say) argyria is a cosmetic issue not a safety issue but I cant be bothered. My gripe is that even a simple, referenced, historical fact can't make it into the article because it upsets your agenda.14.2.5.218 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have. The onus is on those seling a medical (or faux medical) product to demonstrate that it is safe and effective. The default position for medical claims is that they are false until proven true, and the medical claims of colloidal silver are not proven true. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

My proposed addition had nothing to do with colloidal silver or alternative medicine. To remind you, it was this: 'Silver was the most important antimicrobial agent available before the introduction of antibiotics.' This was a reliably sourced statement about the historical use of silver and is relevant to all the modern uses of silver described later in the article. 14.2.18.236 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is far too vague, and far too sweeping a statement. This would need clear attribution and context, and is undue weight based on this single source. Grayfell (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I give up. I'm not wasting any more time on this. When a dodgy vague 'negative' quote from an opinion piece is dragged out you are happy to go along with it. When we try to make a quote more accurate (as per the 'Efficacy' topic) you reject it. Yet when we quote exactly from a reference that you have used yourself you want it moved, reworded, reattributed, etc etc. Clearly you have no NPV on this.14.2.18.236 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not wasting any more time on this. Okay then. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

word RobertXBarrera (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

histaria RobertXBarrera (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up old sources

The wikipolicies require that medical articles in particular be kept up to date, and that the "state of the art" be reflected using recent sources rather than sources that are decades old. There are numerous sources cited here that are very old, and that have been overtaken by more recent events and research. Obviously we can use old sources to support the history of the thing, but for the "state of the art" we should be using recent sources. I propose to remove all sources that reflect on the state of the art but which are more than 5 years old. Any objections please? Wdford (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This is OK for mainstream use of silver, but the quack usage (colloidal, basically) is treated under WP:FRINGE - there are not expected to be up to date MEDRS sources for bullshit, so reliable but older sources can still be used. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Colloidal silver > new article?

A separate article on colloidal silver exists in many other language Wikis, but on the English one it's covered here in the section on 'Alternative medicine' This means that inter-language links can't find it, and some users may not find the content. I don't know if it would be better to create a redirection from 'Colloidal silver' (and possible other terms like 'Silver water') into this article, or create a separate article and move or copy the content from the 'Alternative medicine' section into that. Views? (And PS, FWIW I'm not in any way advocating for colloidal silver, quite the opposite; I would just like to make it easier to find the info.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that colloidal silver is used in making color film, and I wanted to link to the appropriate page. But this one doesn't seem to make sense for that case. Gah4 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It should be obvious that just because something is approved or not, that doesn't make what they say true. I have had personal experience for close to 30 years with using colloidal silver for medical purposes. In fact, it is so useful that I always have some at home, and I make my own using two pure silver electrodes, distilled water with a few drops of saline added, and 27 volts DC of electricity. I have found colloidal silver very efficacious for (1) healing minor skin cuts (especially those annoying paper cuts) or abrasions (and I once had a very deep knife cut on my palm which healed up very nicely), (2) curing and preventing the eye infection conjunctivitis, and since I wear RGB contact lenses I add a drop to my soaking solution for benign disinfection (before I started doing this I had an eye infection, and I put it in my eye along with my contact lens, and it healed up in two days, when previously I'd used the antibiotic creams that are normally dispensed for this so I can say that no other eye treatment works as well), and (3) once I got a severe bug in my stomach, and I was sick and miserable for a few days with lots of throwing up but couldn't get rid of it, and at the urgent care clinic the MD there suggested I drink some colloidal silver to kill it off in my stomach (this worked great, but I had to repopulate my intestinal flora afterwards). It should also be noted that I've read elsewhere that too frequent use of colloidal silver in the mouth will turn the gums grey; I believe this to be true.

So, from my perspective it makes sense that there are other voices to the discussion about the medicinal uses of colloidal silver. There are a lot of things which are true which our medical establishment doesn't recognize because the method of proof is so expensive that unless someone can see a way to pay for it, it never gets the proper effort. I personally know of other cures/treatments that face this same problem.Robert92107 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM, any WP:BMI on Wikipedia needs WP:MEDRS quality sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

what am I reading?

this entire article is about approved medical uses for silver and then at the very bottom it says there are no proven medical uses for silver. These two ideas are contradictory. Meaning half this article is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.197.3 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Where at the very bottom? Please be specific - I can't see what you see? Wdford (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In the Alternative Medicine sub-section there are numerous warnings and statements of there being NO valid use for it. It is true that it has been hyped by many fraudsters as a cure-all or has miraculous healing qualities. These are lies, however, in the section above I discuss my own medical uses of it over about 30 years. NO, it is not a cure-all but I have found it to be quite efficacious in three specific uses which I describe above. I use low-potency colloidal silver which I make at home (which is about the same as you buy in the local health store). One of these uses (skin cuts & abrasions) is very easy to prove (even in a side-by-side test), and the fact that not one of these published nay-sayers has even gone to the effort to test this out shows to me how ignorant they actually are.Robert92107 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The settled knowledge is that colloidal silver is a locus of quackery. Wikipedia is bound to reflect what high-quality sources say (which is just this). Bon courage (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)