Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Lansdown quote and false 'colloidal silver banned for consumption' claim.

CFCF has introduced a raft of edits concerning colloidal silver. It doesn't look like he's a fan. He's even added a picture/info box to draw attention to this. Well OK, thats fair as long as its accurate. But its not. His reference for his edit that the 'selling of colloidal silver for consumption' has been banned is a simplistic foreign language site. It looks like a 'silver for dummies' website to me. CFCF says its a Govt site but who knows? I'm not a Swedish reader. Clearly this is why Wikipedia states that English language references are 'preferred'. In the case of contentious medical issues I think that should say 'compulsory', but anyway, even when the site is translated it simply DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS CLAIM. It just says colloidal silver cannot be sold as a 'dietary supplement'. (In other words, medical claims cannot be made). It does not say it cannot be sold at all. If I was to bottle the stuff and sell it as a thirst quencher (its 99.999999% water after all), or with no health claims at all, then this would be perfectly legal..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Have I won this point? It seems you are no longer attempting to include this claim..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.213.156 (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

For cryin out loud! You've put this bogus claim back in again! Look, you are misunderstanding the law. I've translated the reference and it simply does not say what you are claiming. If you think it does then paste the words right here so we call all read them. If you cant, then remove the claim and the reference, or I will..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)124.169.213.156 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Dont worry , I will do it myself.. I assume this is the reference text from your Swedish website.... "No, colloidal silver may no longer be present in food supplements, but are marketed and sold today as "water purification product," the company formerly sold it as a dietary supplement". The Google translation is a little confusing but it does not mean that silver cannot be sold for consumption, as you seem to think. It just means that it can no longer be labelled as a 'dietary supplement' or health drink. You could call it a 'water purification product' if you wanted to but thats not compulsory either. This is basically exactly the same rule as applies in the US and Australia and probably elsewhere. Colloidal silver can be sold for consumption but you can't put medical claims on the label. To comply with the law, most companies therefore simply put nothing significant on the label..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)124.169.213.156 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

My other concern is CFCF's selective editing and moving of the Lansdown quote. Removing words such as 'in the human body' 'ingestion' and 'inhalation' is significant. The full quote has been in the article for years. Why was this editing done all of a sudden and why is it placed in such an illogical position when it is relevant to all silver medical applications, not just (or not even) colloidal silver. This editing does not improve the article. .. unless af course an anti-colloidal silver bias is intended..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.242.87 (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

have you read MEDRSWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have. What are you specifically referring to?.Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)124.169.213.156 (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well beyond reading it, have you considered applying it?
First of all — the only thing so far you have argued is semantics, and noone else here agrees with you. Second, it is downright rediculous to say I've misunderstood the source claiming it is not for consumption in Sweden, as it is my native language (I can provide you with more detailed translations if you wish). Third, if it is not allowed as a food additive, in medicine, or as a nutritional supplement — that equates with "not for consumption". The entire premise of your argument rests on a wildly partisan interpretation of pretty much everything. Please WP:DROP THE STICK, or risk getting banned. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't want your translation thank you. I want you to copy and paste the exact text from your reference to this section for us all to see. So far I have seen nothing on those references that support your claim. Banning the sale of colloidal silver as a 'dietary supplement etc' does not mean the same as a total ban on the sale of colloidal silver for consumption. The root of your confusion is a misunderstanding of Codex Alimentarius. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius) These are EU food standards and labelling laws adopted in 2012. They affected hundreds of vitamin and mineral 'suppliments', not just colloidal silver. But they are not food banning laws. No ingredient or product was actually banned for consumption although that seems to be a common misconception. As I stated above these laws are similar to the FDA guidelines in the US. Colloidal silver can be freely sold but it cannot be called a medicine or drug. Colloidal silver can be bottled and sold by the gallon for consumption as long as no health claims are made on the bottle. This is not semantics. You just have your facts wrong. Please clarify your references and stop throwing around threats to ban me.124.169.213.156 (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Furthest down on the linked page is a clarification that colloidal silver is not allowed as a food additive. These rules differ from the EU-wide ban on colloidal silver as a dietary supplement. .Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Disallowing it as a food/dietary supplement does not mean it is banned for consumption. It means you can't put it in food and claim that food has a supplement that has a health benefit. It can still be bottled and sold for consumption as colloidal silver as long as no health claims are made.

Go into any health food store in Sweden and you will find it.

A simple search on Google finds Swedish stores selling it. Heres 3 examples...

http://re-fresh.se/sortiment/kolloidalt-silver-1000-ml

http://shop.designed4web.com/product/premium-quality/

https://www.halsokosthuset.se/sv/12-kolloidalt-silver-silvervatten

You do not understand this law correctly. At the very least your reference is contradictory and confusing and, in this situation, difficult for English readers to judge its value. This is why Wikipedia guidelines say foreign language references are not preferred. You should remove the reference until you get support for it. No-one else is supporting you on this as far as I can see. .Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.210.136.41 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If you read the description in each of those three links, none of them is sold for consumption. They are all labelled for water purification, which is legal in Sweden. The citation actually discusses this. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, heres a typical translation... "Mix two teaspoons of silver water per liter of drinking water you want to disinfect." So clearly it is not banned for consumption. They use the word 'disinfect' because that is the only 'benefit' they can legally claim. .Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.136.41 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The content is accurate. it is not sold for consumption, but to purify water. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, well it isn't allowed as a disinfectant, should report that page to the authorities. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong again. According to your own reference '54' It CAN be sold as a disinfectant.. (Question... "Why is silver used in water treatment products when it may not be used in food supplements?" Answer ... "It is then considered as a disinfectant and such may be sold without approval"). The company is doing nothing illegal. They cannot call it a food supplement (because its medical benefits have not been proven) but they CAN call it a disinfectant or sterilizer for drinking water. Your 'ban on sales for consumption' is imaginary. It would clearly be ridiculous to put such a restriction on a drinking water sterilizer. .Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.210.136.41 (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Its being sold as a water purifier you can consume. (Like camper's water purification tablets for example. Nothing illegal about it..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.210.136.41 (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It does not support CFCF's wikipedia edit that colloidal silver is banned for consumption. It can be consumed if its only claimed benefit is as a water sterilizer. If it was truly banned they wouldn't even be able to say that. And it can be sold to drink straight and undiluted as long as health benefits are not claimed. (Heres another Swedish website to prove the point. Translation will show they advise taking 'teaspoons' per day. http://ionplus.se/)

I maintain that you have overreached by claiming colloidal silver is banned for consumption in Sweden or anywhere else. The references you have used do no mention the word 'consumption' anywhere as far as I can see. I have asked a couple of times that you copy and paste to here the exact words (in Swedish) that you interpret as proving there is a ban on consumption. If you intend to use a foreign language reference to edit an English language Wikipedia I think that's a fair request..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.210.136.41 (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you are maintaining; you have repeated it several times. no one agrees with you. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If it was banned for consumption they would legally have to put "Not for consumption" or "Poison" or "Do not swallow" or something similar on the bottle. Sweden has strong labelling laws. .Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.210.136.41 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, but it is not legal to sell it for consumption, even if consuming it isn't illegal. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. Swedish/EU compliant labelling laws are strict. If sales for consumption were illegal they would HAVE to put that on the bottle. They don't because its perfectly legal to sell it for consumption as plain old 'Colloidal silver' as long as they dont make any medical/health/supplement statements..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC) 118.210.136.41 (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all your above link is to a product by Ionosil — which is banned from the industry (since 2015). Second, it only has to be labelled like that if it is poisonous. What we're debating here is whether the rules: not for use in food additives, not for use in dietary supplements, and not for disinfection — equate to not for consumption. I think it's pretty straight forward.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You just cannot get the fact right can you. Ionosil is not banned. They broke the law (regarding medical claims), they were fined, and they have changed their advertising to comply with the law. The trouble is you are trying to understand the law by reading and referencing two simplistic 'Q and A' style consumer websites. They are just plain inadequate. The law is more complicated than that. Colloidal silver is banned from being sold as a 'dietary supplement or dietary additive' because those terms have specific 'medical' meanings. But if it is simply called a 'drink', with no claims of benefits, then it is perfectly legal to be sold for consumption..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC) 118.211.20.183 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That is absolutely false. Silver colloid can only possibly be added to a drink, you can never have a "pure silver colloid drink". That is a direct result not of any nations law, but of the laws of physics — in the same way that pure alcohol cannot be a drink (at least not under normal atmospheric pressures). Pure colloid is an oxymoron, because it necessarily consists of a medium and a soluble substance — and in fact it is the silver nanoparticles that are banned. And I sincerely hope you are not advocating that we consider pure silver food. If you are I would suggest reevaluating your world view (in fact I suggest this based on your previous comments too), Wikipedia is the wrong forum for this type of discussion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your responses are just becoming more hysterical as this proceeds. Your above answer is completely irrelevant. I am trying to explain the facts of the legislation to you. I cant put it much simpler than this: If it was banned they would HAVE to put 'Not for consumption' on the label. Your earlier answer about this that they dont have to put 'Not for consumption' on the label because 'its not actually illegal to drink it' is laughable. By that logic manufacturers of drain cleaner wouldnt have to put 'Do not drink' on their labels label either because its also true its not actually illegal to drink that stuff either..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.211.20.183 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Carl like the IP I don't understand what you are saying about "not for disinfection" - the source clearly says (via google translate): "Why is silver used in water treatment products when it may not be used in food supplements? It is then considered as a disinfectant and such may be sold without approval. Most disinfectants that are already on the market may continue to be sold until the ongoing European review process of the silver is completed. Then the judge to whether these products have acceptable use from environmental and health." I agree with the rest of what you are saying. The content in our article is OK because disinfecting is not consuming, and the IP has no leg here. Just wanted to clarify that point. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog — If you look at the second source from the Chemicals Agency it states: "You may not currently use or sell colloidal silver as a pesticide or disinfectant." The first source refers us to the Chemicals Agency for rules concerning non-food usage, and that is what they say. Hope that clarifies things. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Carl, both sources are clear that you cannot sell colloidal silver in food or as a supplement and so as far as this goes the content is good and the IP is wrong. The stuff about use to disinfect is weird - the food authority makes it clear that existing products for disinfecting water can stay on the market at least until the EU review is done but the chemical authority seems to say that it cannot be sold even for that. Obviously it stlll is being sold, so something is funky about what the chemical authority has there. Maybe they mean you cannot introduce a new product for disinfecting (and old ones are "grandfathered" at least til the EU review is done)? Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: The food authority makes some vague statements about use as a "water cleaner", but directs further questions to the Chemicals Agency (KEMI), which is the authority for chemicals. KEMI's statement is what matters when it comes to disinfectant use, and they're clear that it isn't allowed (actually going far enough to say that it not only isn't allowed in marketing, but not allowed, period). The ban on colloidal silver as an additive is pretty recent (late 2015), thus the change in marketing has only been around for a few months. Therefor it is quite possible KEMI was caught off guard, and haven't enforced the ban yet. Now this isn't official, but from what I've heard there is an ongoing investigation into these marketing practices. It seems to me that the only way selling colloidal silver in Sweden is for decorative use. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The 'disinfectant' issue is sidetracking you. Its not actually relevant to this discussion because its only one small clause of the legislation. The important clause (not mentioned in Carl's references) is that CS (and all other vitamins/minerals etc) can still be sold for consumption without restriction as long as medical/nutrition claims are not made. Its basically the same legislation as in the US..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.211.20.183 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Carl it seems like the fullout ban is WP:TOONEW if the government sources are not aligned. All that matters here is what reliable sources say; that matters for everyone. Again I am good on the "cannot be sold for consumption" content. Please do not try to add it is banned for disinfecting too until there are very strong and clear sources and no remaining contradictions, as there are now. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all we have to take into account which regulation is issued by which authority, I don't consider this to be especially controversial. Secondly, the Food Agency explicitly refers us to the Chemicals Agency for regulation concerning "water cleaning". Now "water cleaning" is not clearly defined, so I cannot say if disinfection is part of all of it, but disinfection is not permitted — and there is no controversy or contradiction surrounding this (the text is very clear). However, there is some controversy surrounding "non-disinfectant water cleaning", which I have not and do not plan upon adding or at all discussing in this article, as it would only cause confusion. There is no mention of use in for example chelation therapy, which is one example of "non-disinfectant water cleaning" (however I'm not very convinced how the physics behind this hold up). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 05:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

came here to help. unwatching. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Look up 'Codex Alimentarius' in Wikipedia. Its the European standar that Sweden agreed to and upon which Carls reference is derived. Here's a quote....... "The text does not seek to ban supplements, but subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, etc... " Its not about banning consumption, its about banning false and misleading labelling!!!. You can freely sell it as a 'drink' as long as you don't claim it has health benefits. Furthermore, if CS was banned for consumption it would HAVE to say so on the bottle. .Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.211.20.183 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason you are not convincing me, is that you brought no references to support your claims and as I already stated I do not agree with your reading of the existing references. I will not be responding to you further, until you bring references that are on point. See also WP:BLUDGEON; we may indeed have to take action against you if you continue repeating yourself. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Carls reference says this.... "EFSA (the European Agency for Food Safety) has not been able to evaluate whether dietary supplements containing colloidal silver is safe to consume, partly due to the base is incomplete."

The actual EFSA Journal published on Jan 2 2016 (Page 2) says this... "Silver (E 174) is authorised as a food additive in the European Union (EU) in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.4"

You can download the full 64 page journal by clicking the pdf. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4364/full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.20.183 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC) .Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

as has already been stated, Sweden's regulation is more restrictive. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? I just shot a cannon through the reference Carl used to support his edit in the Wikipedia article. His reference is discredited. I should not have to do anymore than that to have the edit removed. Anyway, wheres the evidence Sweden is more restrictive? We only have Carls sayso on that..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.211.20.183 (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there are citations from two independent agencies (see both, as well as my comment to Jytdog above). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have already demolished your first reference (54) and your second reference (55) has nothing to do with consumption. Here it is IN FULL....

" What if I want to sell colloidal silver as a biocidal product?

It depends on what you use it for. You are not in the current situation using or selling colloidal silver as a pesticide, for example, for ::::::disinfection. This is because the substance is not authorized as an active substance (or is under evaluation as an active substance in pesticides - biocidal products). For use in medical devices, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals, you contact Drug Administration on which rules apply. For use in food supplements is the NFA which is the responsible authority."

It has absolutely nothing to do with 'consumption' other than saying thats some other agency's responsibility? It not even remotely close to being a suitable reference..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC) 118.211.20.183 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Only if by demolished you mean: argued beside the point and applied false and inaccurate logic. Listen, you're not gaining any traction here, and I would again suggest you kindly WP:DROPTHESTICK. This will be the last time I try to explain things to you, but if I summarize:

• Not a food additive
• Not a food
• Not a water-disinfectant
• Not a medicine

Given these, how can you argue that it can be sold for consumption? If you do not leave this topic alone I or someone else will report you. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have shown that your two references for the claim that 'CS is banned for consumption' are utterly inadequate. If you don't understand that then there is no point continuing. I have referred this to DocJames and will comment no further until he returns.118.211.20.183 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Your summary doesn't even make sense by the way, because we have already established that it IS allowed as a food additive, and it IS allowed as a water-disinfectant..Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)118.211.20.183 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have now joined Wikipedia. My name is Bolt376. I have added my name to the paragraphs above that I wrote.Bolt376 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This Swedish Government site 'The Medical Products Agency' (Sweden's FDA?) explains the legal case against the brand 'Ionsil' but also clearly states there is no general ban against colloidal silver as long there are no claims that it treats or mitigates disease. The site was updated 2015/06/12. https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=https://lakemedelsverket.se/OVRIGA-SIDOR/Vanliga-fragor-om-kolloidalt-silver/&prev=search (Yes, I did say I wouldnt comment again but I think this one was just too good to leave out.) Bolt376 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Now this page has cited three separate agencies that all state that the use is banned within their area of jurisdiction (the Foods Agency for food and food additives, the Chemicals Agency for use as a biocide or disinfectant, and the Medical Products Agency for use in medicines, both alternative and functional). How damn hard is it to understand that the relevant authority is the one that matters for each type of use!? The ban is relatively recent, but it is extremely clear that it is pretty damn watertight! We're not stating that colloidal silver is a banned substance, just that it isn't allowed for these purposes — so based on that: What the hell is your argument? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your first source ONLY says it cannot be sold as 'dietary supplement'. Your second source is about disinfectants so its irrelevant to this issue (except that it is conflict with parts of the first source anyway). The third source (I added it) confirms that the restriction are to do with medical claims only. None of the sources say it is banned 'generally' for consumption. Your problem is that you do not understand the legal definition of a 'Dietary Supplement'.Bolt376 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I should also point out that I think you are in violation of Wikipedia foreign language sources guidelines. You are supposed to provide an accurate translation in English of the exact quote, not simply link to the source.Bolt376 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What proposed text are we discussing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

In the colloidal silver 'Info Box'. Namely.... "A bottle of colloidal silver. It may be illegal to market as preventing or treating cancer, and in some jurisdictions illegal to sell colloidal silver for consumption.[54]" I don't disagree that its illegal to treat cancer but I contend that the claim that it is illegal to sell for consumption is incorrect because Carl misunderstands the meaning of 'dietary supplement'. Bolt376 (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Also of concern is the Lansdown quote in the top section (which has been in the article since at least 2013) has been changed from the exact quote ..."Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, or dermal application" to this reduced version which I think is less informative and does not improve the article..... " Silver generally has low toxicity and minimal risk is expected for use in approved medical applications" (Although I must now admit I'm not sure when or by whom this was originally altered. Maybe it was you Doc? But anyway CFCF Carl put it back in when I tried to restore the full quote.). Bolt376 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree that that text does not belong as an image caption. Would be good to find an EN ref for the claim.

I dont think Carl has even provided an unambiguous SWEDISH reference for the claim! Bolt376 (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you could always try an RfC. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not its 'legal' should be pretty easy to establish with suitable references. It's a simple matter of fact, not opinion. Its legal or it isn't. The references provided by Carl do not provide references to the original source of the legal question.Bolt376 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

With requesting to quoting or paraphrasing, we should definitely do the latter per policy. The ref is only about "Silver in health care" not altmed us. Therefore mentioning "medical applications" is important as usually it is used within impregnated devices rather than given by mouth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding paraphrasing here. I disagree but will go along with you. The shortened version is vague. "It exhibits low toxicity..." In what? Humans, fish, the soil? It can be used in "approved medical applications". Whats an approved application? Is a layman reader supposed to understand that? Should there be a link to explain what that term means? However, its especially confusing the way its positioned after the colloidal silver quote. I propose putting it on a line of its own.Bolt376 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Bolt376 — Please stop removing the text or we will have to lock the page again. Disruption and ignoring what now 3 editors have told you is grounds for being banned from Wikipedia. You have already violated policy, I would suggest you refrain from doing so again.
In essence your argument is entirely flawed, there is no requirement for a translation to be posted: just that it be provided upon request. In the above discussion I offered such a translation, which you promptly denied. Regardless, I did translate it (you can go up and check). If there is any remaining confusion I am willing to translate yet other portions of the text upon request. However if the confusion is based upon you choosing to use Google translate in defiance of what translations have been provided, that is not my problem and I suggest you start an RfC. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I will also point out that the policy section you cite is about quotes, this is not a quote. WP:GAMING is a serious offence. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't want your translation Carl because I want to see the original quote first. I requested it before. You refused to post it. I'm requesting it again, as the guidelines say I am entitled to do. When we have the quote we can THEN compare it to your translation. Bolt376 (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

What quote? There is no quote, we're not quoting anything here?! Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I mean that I want the exact words or sentence, or couple of sentences, in Swedish, from your reference that you translate as meaning the same as 'banned for consumption'. I want to know which Swedish words you are looking at. Then we can get an exact English translation and take it from there. Then anyone can see if your translation or paraphrase into 'banned for consumption' is accurate. Bolt376 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, I've done exactly this before, but here you go:

From the Swedish Food Agency: [1]

Är det tillåtet att sälja kosttillskott med kolloidalt silver?
Nej, kolloidalt silver får inte längre ingå i kosttillskott, men marknadsförs och säljs numera som "vattenreningsprodukt" av företag som tidigare sålde det som kosttillskott.
Det är kemikalieinspektionen som ansvarar för kontrollen av vattenreningsprodukter och därmed även av kollodialt silver.

Translation:

Is it allowed to sell dietary supplements with colloidal silver?
No, collodial silver is no longer allowed in dietary supplements, but is marketed and sold as a "water cleaning product" from companies which previously sold it as a dietary supplement.
It is the Chemicals Agency which is in charge of controlling water cleaning products and therefor also colloidal silver.

So, since a "water cleaning product" is somewhat curiously defined, one can go to the Chemical Agency (KEMI), which has a pretty clear statement: [2]

Du får inte i dagsläget använda eller sälja kolloidalt silver som bekämpningsmedel till exempel för desinfektion.

Translates to

You may not currently use or sell colloidal silver as a pesticide for use in for example disinfection.

I've been very strict in the translation and phrases such as "for use in for example" are acceptable in Swedish, though they may seem weird in English. I've preserved this to maintain full integrity of the translation.

Now, stop this nonsense. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Your translation of it is probably correct but your understanding of it is almost certainly wrong. Heres the key quote...

Is it allowed to sell dietary supplements with colloidal silver?
No, collodial silver is no longer allowed in DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS.

The term 'dietary supplements' has a specific legal meaning. Heres the US meaning for example.( http://hprc-online.org/dietary-supplements/opss/operation-supplement-safety-OPSS/opss-frequently-asked-questions-faqs-1/what2019s-the-definition-of-a-dietary-supplement). The EU has similar laws, I quoted Codex Alimentarius earlier. Basically it is an ingredient that 'adds' to your diet or health such as a nutrient or vitamin. Colloidal silver has no proven health benefits so it can't be called a 'supplement'. But it does not mean it is banned in toto. Its almost exactly the same law as in the US. Bolt376 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No, there is another clause banning it as a food additive as well. We've been through this. This is obstructionist. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well (A) You haven't quoted it. (B) It says exactly the opposite. It IS legal. (It applies to things like silver coatings on chocolates), and (C) FOOD ADDITIVE also has a specific legal definition. The major inadequacy of your reference website is that it does not provide 'key references' for the original source of these legallity issues. A comparable website in the US, the NIH for example, provides key references for significant issues. https://nccih.nih.gov/health/silver. Bolt376 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, just stop it. I'm not wasting more time here, and I'm not repeating myself for the 10th time just so that you can say that you don't want to understand. Your objection about key references is absolute nonsense, and you know it. These are the agencies that make the rules, the NIH does not — which is why it directs you to the rules (e.g. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=538&tid=97). Either start an RfC or drop it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well this is a new low in what constitutes a suitable reference as far as I'm concerned. But I'm over this too. You're a brick wall Carl and I'm done with banging my head. Bolt376 (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Overhaul of lead

I just completed an overhaul of the lead section of this article, and have left a comment in my edit summary to see the article talk page. I placed the various systematic reviews in chronological order, removed some citations that were duplicates, removed portions that repeated the same information twice, and attempted to rephrase several sentences so that they matched the content of the references with which they were associated. This was done carefully and with an eye towards article neutrality, correct use of language, and accuracy of statements given. Needless to say, it was time consuming. Although I don't claim to have fixed "all" of the flaws here, I believe I have improved the article significantly. However, I understand that I made several changes that some might consider significant. If an editor disagrees with any of these changes individually, I encourage him/ her to either contact me to discuss them or to revert individual changes on a case-by-case basis. A simple revert of the entire change I made, however, will also undo a number of changes throughout the lead to which I do not think any editor would have any objection. KDS4444 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I am unsure why you removed the references from the lead?

Not clear why you combined creams and dressings together? IMO they were better apart.

You removed a bunch of other references aswell?

Most not an improvement so restored most to how it was before.

Why would we put stuff in chronological order? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The alt med uses in the lead should be separated from the medical uses IMO. The alt med uses are not really medical uses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wholesale revert of my 4/6/17 edit of "Medical uses of silver"

Hi, Would like constructive reasons for wholesale removal of my carefully documented post yesterday. If WHO approved the use of colloidal silver on an emergency basis for Ebola, then how is documenting that a POV-push? I believe it is policy of Wiki not to discourage new editors outright?

Current Emergency Use Approval

In August of 2014, the World Health Organization approved of the use of colloidal silver as an emergency "compassionate use" intervention for the treatment of Ebola "outside of clinical trials."[71] Less than three months after this approval was granted, major Western news outlets reported Sierra Leone to be Ebola-free (referring to a specific outbreak wave), after an especially deadly outbreak prior to the legal introduction of colloidal silver.[72] [73][74]An article by a Liberian news agency credits the U.S. Department of Defense with having developed nano-silver in the 1990's.[75] The article quotes a Sierra Leone news agency and that country's Minister of Information as saying, "This works; people are getting better."[76] While Sierra Leone formerly had an Ebola fatality rate of 70%, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now includes that nation under the category of "Former Widespread Transmission and Current, Established Control Measures" and lists a drastically reduced fatality rate of 28% as of April, 2016.[77] Once the basic equipment is in the hands of either a national or local health ministry, the only on-going expense of generating colloidal silver is the price of distilled water, making the drug accessible to third-world populations and making it expedient in a deadly outbreak.

71. "Ethical considerations for use of unregistered interventions for Ebola virus disease (EVD)". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2017-04-06. 72. "WHO: Sierra Leone is free of Ebola". PBS NewsHour. Retrieved 2017-04-06. 73. "Sierra Leone declared free of Ebola". Mail Online. Retrieved 2017-04-06. Sannoh, Bintu (2015-10-17). 74. "Ebola has almost gone, but life is still desperate in Sierra Leone". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-04-06. 75. Jr, By Edwin G. Genoway,. "The New Dawn Liberia - Sierra Leone tells Nano Silver success story". www.thenewdawnliberia.com. Retrieved 2017-04-06. 76. Jr, By Edwin G. Genoway,. "The New Dawn Liberia - Sierra Leone tells Nano Silver success story". www.thenewdawnliberia.com. Retrieved 2017-04-06. 77. "2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa - Case Counts". www.cdc.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-06. Text " Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever " ````lgc

Documenting Toxicity

Thank God for this page documenting silver's toxicity! Some darn vendor just states, "For external use only" on their packaging. Being us guys, if a little gets on our food we usually just still eat the stuff regardless of taste unless the solution has skull and bones on the packaging. Thankfully, I read this page out of concern for my pet (and not myself) prior to eating my possibly contaminated food. Well, after a nibbling a few pieces anyways and noticing the odd taste. $40 of very fresh fish had to be put in the trash. Again, Thanks the volunteer Wikipedia submissions. Hopefully I didn't ingest too much of this stuff! --roger (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really the place for this, although I am not sure what you are saying. How did silver get on your fish (or were they silverfish :)).Desoto10 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Utterly Biased

The section on "Alternative Medicine" is obviously a hit piece designed to discredit the subject. Statements such as "There is no evidence that colloidal silver treats or prevents any medical condition" come right out of big pharma PR playbook. This is an arrogant, logically unprovable statement and rings of illegitimacy. Stringing together a series of biased sources proves nothing. It's common knowledge that MSM sources such as LA Times are pharma-funded, and the FDA and similar agencies are collude with industry to quash competition. Nobody is fooled by this nonsense. ThomasMcLeod (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"While wound dressings containing silver sulfadiazine or silver nanomaterials may be used on external infections,[2][3][4] there is little evidence to support such use." Either silver has anti-microbial properties or it doesn't. Since there is another page that shows the oligodynamic effect of metals, including silver, I think it does.

Now with colloidal silver and its marketing. I could see if there was some kind of debate about this effect being a surface effect rather than one that would work inside the body. But that isn't well covered. Only statements from different government agencies claiming it does not work,then where and how it has been banned. This could use some work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leogebbia (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly contradictory about the quoted sentence, unfortunately. The history of pharmacology is littered with stuff that works in a petri dish but not in a person. I don't think anyone disputes that silver can have microbicidal activity. The open question is whether applying dressings containing this particular agent actually leads to improved patient outcomes—is the silver in the dressings able to actually get to where it's needed, maintaining concentrations high enough for activity, for long enough to meaningfully reduce the number of infections in patients or reduce the time required for wounds to heal? (This is the fundamental question we want to answer about any medical intervention—does this help more people get better – or get better faster – or prevent more people from getting sick, than the alternative?)

For example, silver-impregnated dressings may have an effect on pathogens at the surface of a wound, but be unable to reach pathogens more likely to cause serious infection, located deep in the wound bed or protected by biofilms. Heck, the body's own metal-binding proteins (mostly metallothioneins) may act to mop up the free silver before it can do something useful, whether we want them to or not. ("Why won't my car start? I poured gasoline all over the roof, but it didn't help.") The limited number of clinical trials of silver dressings show that in practice the difference they make in wound healing is insignificant to minimal at best, so that's what we have to report in Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Picture Box of Colloidal Ag

This picture box adds nothing to the article except as an advertisement for the company that makes and sells the stuff; placebo is not a "benefit"; Legality adds nothing as it is different globally. In the USA it is illegal to sell CS as an OTC drug for any disease. I prefer to just delete it. As a minimum, I would block the company name, change placebo to "none" and put "varies" for Legality. But, really, let us just get rid of it. Desoto10 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Desoto10 (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed the spammy watermark from the image. Placebo is the same as none. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Desoto10—If you give a quality source saying that it is illegal in the US we will gladly include that. It is essentially not allowed in the whole EU as a supplement, but the Swedish position is somewhat unique in that it disallows nearly every possible use—so I think it is relevant for the infobox. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The previous version made it look like the 'consumption illegality' was world wide and the Swedish reference was simply an example of this. In fact there is no illegality outside of Sweden so such a universal ban should not be implied. I have altered it to make it clear the ban (which is misunderstood anyway) applies to Sweden only. Bolt376 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is there any specification at all concerning the law in Sweden? I could maybe understand why that would be specified in the Swedish language article, but that's a set of awfully specific details for the topic. Unless a general section on legality in various areas is included, or if Swedish law is somehow unique, I don't see the general relevance. LordQwert (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Efficacy

An IP wants to change the lay summary:

Alternative medicine products such as colloidal silver are not safe or effective.

To:

There is a lack of adequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of colloidal silver ingredients.

There is clear consensus that the definition of alternative medicine is a lack of credible evidence (aka Minchin's Law) and the technical defintiin borders on WP:WEASEL in the context of the lede in this article. The simple fact is that colloidal silver turns you blue and doesn't do anything else. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Since this point is contentious, we should stick to quoting the source rather than using subjective "interpretations" of our own. Colloidal silver has not yet been PROVED to be not safe or effective - unless you have a reliable source to support that? I agree therefore with the IP that we should rather quote the source in the article, perhaps as follows: Per the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations §310.548 (a): "There is a lack of adequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for OTC use in the treatment or prevention of any disease." The reported "lack of adequate data" stems from tests being too small to "conclusively" prove anything either way, not from quality tests proving that its unsafe or ineffective. If the Feds had firm grounds to word this point more strongly, they could have and would have. Wdford (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree fully with Wdford. The reference clearly did not say 'Colloidal silver was not safe'. That was JzG's 'lay summary' A fairer lay summary would have been 'We don't know if its safe or not because we don't have enough data'. Perhaps JzG ultimately agreed with me because he added 2 more references to support his summary, although I have doubts that 2 opinion pieces in medical magazines really stack up as reliable references. I doubt they had any peer review.

For your information there is a serious lack of evidence that colloidal silver is unsafe. Yes, vastly overdosing on the stuff can cause grey skin, but that is not a 'safety' issue. It is a cosmetic issue as is often stated in accepted references that are cited elsewhere in this same Wikipedia article. It is an undesirable side effect for sure but there is no evidence that greyness has endangered anyone's life. Another very dubious claim is that it can reduce the effectiveness of some antibiotics. I once wrote to the National Centre for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (as it was then called) enquiring after a source for this claim (because they were the usual first point of reference). They directed me to the FDA. So I wrote to the FDA asking for the source of the claim. They wrote back saying I would need to lodge a freedom of information request to get the original reference. Yes... just to get a medical reference that should be available for anyone to see I would need to lodge an FOI request! I concluded at this point that the claim is BS and in fact there is no actual evidence to support that claim at at all.

There are plenty more claims on so-called 'reliable souces' that colloidal silver MAY cause this or that, but actual evidence is non-existent. Regarding cancer, The US Enviromental Protection Agency 'Risk Information System.'actually says this about silver... "No evidence of cancer in humans has been reported despite frequent therapeutic use of the compound over the years.".... "They concluded that finely divided silver powder injected i.m. does not induce cancer." .... "Further support for the lack of silver's ability to induce or promote cancer stems from the finding that, despite long standing and frequent therapeutic usage in humans, there are no reports of cancer associated with silver." .... "Silver nitrate was considered nonmutagenic in this assay." .... "Silver chloride was considered nonmutagenic in this assay."..... "Silver was not included as a metal of carcinogenic concern.".

Of course none of this will ever make it to the front page of this article. 14.2.28.185 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there going to be any more discussion on this? If not I propose the wording is changed to the near verbatim quote... 'There is a lack of adequate data to establish the safety and effectiveness of colloidal silver ingredients'... because, as Wdford said, 'Since this point is contentious we should stick to quoting the source rather than using subjective "interpretations" of our own'. 14.2.28.185 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't work and it turns you blue, plus there's the risk of using colloidal silver in place of reality-based treatment. This is covered by the sources in the article. I added more, which make exactly the same case. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There is no high-quality evidence supporting the idea that colloidal silver is effective for treating any specific medical condition. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Tyler, I'm not proposing we say that its safe and effective. I'm just proposing we use the the brief quote from the original reference instead of using a clearly misleading summary of that quote.14.2.28.185 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Which is unnecessary since I added two further sources which unequivocally support the text. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)}

Your 'further sources' are just lightweight opinion pieces. I doubt they count as reliable sources. Lets see how one of them starts.... "I was making rounds at the hospital and, for some strange reason I was asked about influenza". Is that a credible source or a script from an episode of Doc Martin? 14.2.28.185 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

All these sources - and the additional ones I added today, which are a small subset of those which exist - are reliable sources per multiple discussions on Wikipedia over the years. We have known pretty much since day 1 that fans of colloidal silver dislike the fact that it is not considered safe or effective, but that is not our problem to fix. We won't change until there is credible peer reviewed evidence showing safety and efficacy to match the claims made by alt-meddlers. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 25 February 2019 (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)