Ok, the thread was closed. but David said before that:
"It's one of the "miracle cures" that has no scientific backing that I can find. If anyone can find any reputable studies that showcase its efficacy, by all means, please share them as I'd hate to be providing misinformation."
So assuming he wants an answer and wasn't being cynical...
The story with silver is that it is a very old (think 1800's) wound dressing for nasty festering war wounds. But not the colloidal silver you see in the stores... more like the silver nitrate or silver sulfadiazine you get by prescription from a doctor who knows what he is doing. Curad recently came up with a "colloidal silver gel" which is pantsed if you read the label because it also contains silver nitrate. It is very effective at wound cleaning because it is basically a battlefield drug at OTC strength.
Seriously, it's on Amazon if not in your local pharmacy:
http://www.amazon.com/Curad-Silver-Solution-Antimicrobial-Pack/dp/B004YHL3FG
If it was ineffective, would a major Antimicrobial company manufacture it?
If it was ineffective, would there be a prescription for it?
Silvadene cream
http://www.rxlist.com/silvadene-drug.htm
The fun begins when you start reading pubmed because like all old techniques that work extremely well, drug companies are in the business of destroying confidence in them. Take this one for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724028
Let me point out just some of the problems here:
1. The human studies didn't "meet criteria." Well, yeah. If your criteria are that you divide the humans into one group that gets treatment and another who is denied treatment (placebo) and they have burns, then you can't expect that any study like that would even be legal much less ethical.
2. In animals you can't look for outcomes such as prevention of amputation and preservation of life, and prevention of septicemia. And they didn't. They only cared about one endpoint, that was complete wound healing. The promise of SSD is that they don't have to cut off your leg because of gangrene. How are you going to do a trial for that in rats?
3. They "read 20 abstracts" That's like saying you skimmed very carefully before taking a test.
Another one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24363048
I don't know how you read that, but my take on it isn't that those things aren't effective ... and they did test quite a number of things including silver (why did they test it if it's such a hoax?), it's that they are worried about bacterial resistance building up and they'd rather let people suffer with leg ulcers to save up the antibiotics for septicemia and other more important things. Might be reasonable, but it's not because any of those things are ineffective.
Here's someone just talking about the effects of silver on wounds:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367909/
While I wouldn't swallow whole anything I read anywhere, I feel comfortable with that one because:
1. It fits exactly what my doctor told me when he prescribed Silvadene for a wound on my hand, that it both kills germs and helps wound healing. My experience of it is that it's magical in how quickly things heal.
2. I can't imagine the Chinese really care about the politics of selling Neosporin to me, so I'm not worried they're trying to scam me. The entire thing reads like an exploration of facts, though I'm aware that Chinese research is done in a groupthink fashion, and there have been plenty of exposures of the failures of academia to catch fake science lately. But there's no reason to unfairly target Chinese, especially Taiwanese, researchers with suspicion. Just my opinion based on Chinese people I've met.
3. I like the references, they seem to have done some good homework.
If you will notice, the first two, which establish the background...
1. Fox CLJ. Silver sulfadiazine-a new topical therapy for pseudomonas in burns. Archives of. Surgery. 1968;96:184–188. [PubMed]
2. Lowbury EJL, Jackson DM, Ricketts CR, Davies B. Topical chemoprophylaxis for burns: trials of creams containing silver sulphadiazine and trimethoprim. Injury. 1972;3:18–24. [PubMed]
If you look them up in pubmed, there is no information about them, only a reference. They are too old. Interest in the treatment was "revived in 1965" ...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10716355
Therefore, if you want to find out the full history and the full information on those old references, you must physically travel to a medical library and ask to see the original journals and articles. This information is currently hidden in the depths of medical libraries. It is not being intentionally hidden, just, there is only so much data entry that is likely to occur with a system like PubMed.
Like the transfer from reel to reel, to 8-tracks, to records to CD's and now to iTunes... lots of music will never play again because it was never transfered to new media. Silver preparations are stuck in the same negative space... people with an agenda are trying to kill it because the information hasn't been transfered and people who are simply looking for answers are confused because they're finding that it does in fact work. Not just anecdotally. The information is stuck in medical libraries, where it's unlikely to be found.
However humans are clever animals. We know when something works, that's why this subject keeps coming back. Punitively closing threads and preventing people from discussing it isn't going to help. Neither will statements like "it has no side effects" because it does, and it carries risks.
Like all real treatments for real conditions, it needs to be respected and used properly, not swept under a rug just because it's old and the information is stuck in a time warp.
Getting back to colloidal silver. Does it work? I don't know. I know that silver preparations work for wounds, and have been traditionally used in wound healing, which is why Alternative Healers have come up with a liquid and bla di bla di bla... I won't repeat their pitch... you've heard it. The theory needs testing by an unbiased person, not a drug company, or someone who routinely takes money from drug companies. It needs testing in humans against another conventional treatment, and if it is found ineffective, then the study will probably be ended early because of the ethical problem of giving people an ineffective treatment for a medical problem.
Before it can even go there, it would have to be classed as a DRUG, not a supplement. And that is simply not happening. The FDA is adamant that supplements can't make treatment claims, and if they do, they must apply to become drugs. So it's an impasse.
That's why the most interesting studies on supplements comes from Japan, India, and other countries, but not from the USA. They are doing our efficacy testing for us because we're too dogmatic to do it.
The point of my post is, there is plenty of research out there, but asking for anyone to present it online is a farce. It hasn't been transfered to the internet medium. If you are really interested in the original efficacy studies on silver (not colloidal, but who knows, you may find something about that too?), you must find it in a medical library in person.
Do I use it myself?
Yes, I use it on my eyes because I get recurring eye infections and the Curad silver solution stops that instantly without burning.
Yes, I've drunk the colloidal silver, but honestly my routine doesn't allow for such things. And I wouldn't drink it for long periods because I don't want my skin turning gray-blue. I'd rather fast if I want my flora to die out. It's equally effective and I end up healthy after fasting. I'm much more focused on getting my flora to be the right flora than making it all die.
And yes, I still have some Silvadene that I keep around for cuts. It lasts forever if you don't contaminate it. Though I can't imagine anything can live in it, but who knows.
"It's one of the "miracle cures" that has no scientific backing that I can find. If anyone can find any reputable studies that showcase its efficacy, by all means, please share them as I'd hate to be providing misinformation."
So assuming he wants an answer and wasn't being cynical...
The story with silver is that it is a very old (think 1800's) wound dressing for nasty festering war wounds. But not the colloidal silver you see in the stores... more like the silver nitrate or silver sulfadiazine you get by prescription from a doctor who knows what he is doing. Curad recently came up with a "colloidal silver gel" which is pantsed if you read the label because it also contains silver nitrate. It is very effective at wound cleaning because it is basically a battlefield drug at OTC strength.
Seriously, it's on Amazon if not in your local pharmacy:
http://www.amazon.com/Curad-Silver-Solution-Antimicrobial-Pack/dp/B004YHL3FG
If it was ineffective, would a major Antimicrobial company manufacture it?
If it was ineffective, would there be a prescription for it?
Silvadene cream
http://www.rxlist.com/silvadene-drug.htm
The fun begins when you start reading pubmed because like all old techniques that work extremely well, drug companies are in the business of destroying confidence in them. Take this one for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724028
Let me point out just some of the problems here:
1. The human studies didn't "meet criteria." Well, yeah. If your criteria are that you divide the humans into one group that gets treatment and another who is denied treatment (placebo) and they have burns, then you can't expect that any study like that would even be legal much less ethical.
2. In animals you can't look for outcomes such as prevention of amputation and preservation of life, and prevention of septicemia. And they didn't. They only cared about one endpoint, that was complete wound healing. The promise of SSD is that they don't have to cut off your leg because of gangrene. How are you going to do a trial for that in rats?
3. They "read 20 abstracts" That's like saying you skimmed very carefully before taking a test.
Another one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24363048
I don't know how you read that, but my take on it isn't that those things aren't effective ... and they did test quite a number of things including silver (why did they test it if it's such a hoax?), it's that they are worried about bacterial resistance building up and they'd rather let people suffer with leg ulcers to save up the antibiotics for septicemia and other more important things. Might be reasonable, but it's not because any of those things are ineffective.
Here's someone just talking about the effects of silver on wounds:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367909/
While I wouldn't swallow whole anything I read anywhere, I feel comfortable with that one because:
1. It fits exactly what my doctor told me when he prescribed Silvadene for a wound on my hand, that it both kills germs and helps wound healing. My experience of it is that it's magical in how quickly things heal.
2. I can't imagine the Chinese really care about the politics of selling Neosporin to me, so I'm not worried they're trying to scam me. The entire thing reads like an exploration of facts, though I'm aware that Chinese research is done in a groupthink fashion, and there have been plenty of exposures of the failures of academia to catch fake science lately. But there's no reason to unfairly target Chinese, especially Taiwanese, researchers with suspicion. Just my opinion based on Chinese people I've met.
3. I like the references, they seem to have done some good homework.
If you will notice, the first two, which establish the background...
1. Fox CLJ. Silver sulfadiazine-a new topical therapy for pseudomonas in burns. Archives of. Surgery. 1968;96:184–188. [PubMed]
2. Lowbury EJL, Jackson DM, Ricketts CR, Davies B. Topical chemoprophylaxis for burns: trials of creams containing silver sulphadiazine and trimethoprim. Injury. 1972;3:18–24. [PubMed]
If you look them up in pubmed, there is no information about them, only a reference. They are too old. Interest in the treatment was "revived in 1965" ...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10716355
Therefore, if you want to find out the full history and the full information on those old references, you must physically travel to a medical library and ask to see the original journals and articles. This information is currently hidden in the depths of medical libraries. It is not being intentionally hidden, just, there is only so much data entry that is likely to occur with a system like PubMed.
Like the transfer from reel to reel, to 8-tracks, to records to CD's and now to iTunes... lots of music will never play again because it was never transfered to new media. Silver preparations are stuck in the same negative space... people with an agenda are trying to kill it because the information hasn't been transfered and people who are simply looking for answers are confused because they're finding that it does in fact work. Not just anecdotally. The information is stuck in medical libraries, where it's unlikely to be found.
However humans are clever animals. We know when something works, that's why this subject keeps coming back. Punitively closing threads and preventing people from discussing it isn't going to help. Neither will statements like "it has no side effects" because it does, and it carries risks.
Like all real treatments for real conditions, it needs to be respected and used properly, not swept under a rug just because it's old and the information is stuck in a time warp.
Getting back to colloidal silver. Does it work? I don't know. I know that silver preparations work for wounds, and have been traditionally used in wound healing, which is why Alternative Healers have come up with a liquid and bla di bla di bla... I won't repeat their pitch... you've heard it. The theory needs testing by an unbiased person, not a drug company, or someone who routinely takes money from drug companies. It needs testing in humans against another conventional treatment, and if it is found ineffective, then the study will probably be ended early because of the ethical problem of giving people an ineffective treatment for a medical problem.
Before it can even go there, it would have to be classed as a DRUG, not a supplement. And that is simply not happening. The FDA is adamant that supplements can't make treatment claims, and if they do, they must apply to become drugs. So it's an impasse.
That's why the most interesting studies on supplements comes from Japan, India, and other countries, but not from the USA. They are doing our efficacy testing for us because we're too dogmatic to do it.
The point of my post is, there is plenty of research out there, but asking for anyone to present it online is a farce. It hasn't been transfered to the internet medium. If you are really interested in the original efficacy studies on silver (not colloidal, but who knows, you may find something about that too?), you must find it in a medical library in person.
Do I use it myself?
Yes, I use it on my eyes because I get recurring eye infections and the Curad silver solution stops that instantly without burning.
Yes, I've drunk the colloidal silver, but honestly my routine doesn't allow for such things. And I wouldn't drink it for long periods because I don't want my skin turning gray-blue. I'd rather fast if I want my flora to die out. It's equally effective and I end up healthy after fasting. I'm much more focused on getting my flora to be the right flora than making it all die.
And yes, I still have some Silvadene that I keep around for cuts. It lasts forever if you don't contaminate it. Though I can't imagine anything can live in it, but who knows.
Last edited:
