[Posted in seven parts -- all combined here into one.  BIG]
 
Sorry about the delay in posting this debunking; I was briefly out of
town to visit my mom.  Most of this was typed on the plane, so please
forgive any resulting unpolished feel.
 
I greatly appreciated the following link:
 
http://www.cat007.com/silver.htm
 
Rather than attack colloidal silver directly (my small experiment did that
effectively enough), I will critically review the web page and point out
how innuendo, hyperbole, and duplicitous statements are used to exaggerate
the effectiveness of the substance.  Rather than wasting space by directly
quoting the page, I will quote a few of the first and last words and you
can access the page to read--for yourself--the original quote (I recommend
either printing this response, or the original page, to do a side-by-side
comparison).  This has the added benefit that no one can claim I've
misquoted.  I have also saved a copy of the webpage, so if changes have
been made in the content, they can be pointed out accurately (this happens
more often than you think).  Don't waste time doing this; you never know
when a page will be pulled or changed in response to critical review.
 
-----------------
 
"Note: The following was taken...non profit Charitable Trust"
 
This type of disclaimer has long been abandoned in scientific literature.
The reason?  It unfairly biases the reader PRIOR to presenting data.
People who would be impressed by the organization tend to view the
material as factual, regardless of the content or claims being made.  The
author has NO real hope of convincing non-colloidal silver users that the
product is effective; rather, the goal is to firm support for those who
might be wavering in their belief, as well as to convince others open to
the idea.  Besides, who the hell is this group, and how are they
supported?  I'll bet you there is a closer connection to colloidal silver
sales here than we realize.  Many scientific journals try to get around
this phenomenon by placing the author's name at the end of the article.
Here are some critical questions EVERYONE should ask, regardless if the
writer is myself, any of the vets on this list, or anyone else.  Does
it matter who wrote it?  (Ignore the name and concentrate on the
information).  Is it testable?  Is it repeatable?  Can it be falsified?
Does it make biological or scientific sense?  Is it supported, either by
independent studies, homologs, or those that are close analogs?  Finally,
does the author admit ANY problems?  Real science admits and lists various
problems and exceptions.  NOTHING in biology is 100%; if a claim is made
that it is 100% effective, or totally benign, you are being led by the
nose.  They are just pulling the bull.
 
--- --- ---
 
"Most of us have read...I frequently am (sigh)"
 
This is a VERY clever way of making the writer part of the readership
group.  The author is "admitting" the colloidal silver arena seems to be
dominated by "clever marketing scoundrels," wishing to only make profit.
Like you, the author has been confused and mislead.  As such, the author
has subliminally become part of the group he is trying to reach--not
those with a religious belief in alternative medicines, nor those who
easily see through the fabrications.  The author is trying to reach ONLY
THOSE WHO WANT TO BELIEVE, and only need an excuse.  Look at the argument,
reworded: "I was angry and confused by con artists who were only trying to
make a buck.  But I was wrong..."  The author becomes the messiah, leading
the confused to truth.
 
--- --- ---
 
"In 1999 I learned...is totally benign?"
 
Two things are happening here.  First, the author has the very difficult
problem of discounting what the government has long said, that colloidal
silver has no medical value.  The author tries to get around this by
implying that the government HAS FOUND IT HAS value.  How?  By regulating
the substance, of course!  Look at the argumentative mistake: the author
is claiming that if the government ignored colloidal silver because it
is medically valueless, then wanting to regulate it means it HAS medical
value.  Is is a valid argument?  Well, apply it to other arguments.  Does
lead have medical value?  It is regulated.  So are radioactive substances,
organic wastes, spray paint, cocaine, and pesticides.  Second, the author
never admits WHY the government is considering regulating CS.  The
regulation is NOT about the medical value, but rather because of the
number of people making false claims of the medical usage.  Colloidal
silver is allowed to be sold as a "supplement," NOT as a medical
treatment.  The regulation referred to by the author was one designed to
regulate fraud.  This is what the "regulation" says (in part):
 
"FDA is issuing this proposal because many products containing colloidal
silver ingredients or silver salts are being marketed for numerous
serious disease conditions and FDA is not aware of any substantial
scientific evidence that supports the use of OTC colloidal silver
ingredients or silver salts for these disease conditions." (Federal
Register: October 15, 1996, Volume 61, Number 200, Pages 53685-53688).
 
and
 
"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule
establishing that 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.
None of the silver salts evaluated as part of FDA's OTC drug review was
found to be generally recognized as safe and effective for its intended
use(s).  FDA is not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that
supports the use of OTC colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for
disease conditions." (Federal Register: August 17, 1999, Volume 64,
Number 158, Pages 44653-446580.
 
Since the author intimates knowledge of the legislation, one must assume
they also know why those regulations were implemented.  I can only
conclude one of two things.  Either the author is being deliberately
duplicitous, OR, they are simply obtuse.
 
For more information, see the following links:
 
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html
 
http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=68292416
720+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
 
http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=68212950
3668+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
 
--- --- ---
 
"My researchers in...research was abandoned"
 
In the con game, this is the set up.  It is the equivalent of saying, "I
tried it myself, but it didn't work."  This sets you up for the next
series of statements, designed to sell you the product.  Why is this step
important?  If you keep in mind the target audience the author is trying
to reach, there are two main problems.  First, there is the tremendous
amount of data suggesting colloidal silver has no medical value.  How can
the author get around that one?  Second, the author is talking to a group
of people who are wavering on the subject.  Remember, disbelievers will
not be convinced, believers are already in camp sharpening their swords;
the people the author is addressing are those that MIGHT BE CONVINCED.
Again, the author is identifying with that group, say, "I was also
confused..."
 
There is one other little tidbit, direct from the Flim-Flam man (and you
will notice this throughout the page): why are all researchers, except
the author, inaccessible?  Actually, even the author is anonymous!)
Researchers from The Dominican Republic, a lady researcher from Norway,
yada, yada, yada.  No names.  No addresses.  NO WAY TO CONFIRM ANYTHING!
Pick up any scientific paper, and you will find names and addresses of
the authors, citations identifying other researchers, and a bibliography
listing all pertinent information and research so you can go and see for
yourself what was originallysaid.  Why do you think science progresses?
Scientific methodology forces the participants into full disclosure.  In
that way, bad science is eventually discovered and discounted.
 
Here are some serious questions.  Who were the researchers and how can I
contact them for confirmation of these findings?  And here is something
for you to think about....why does the author NOT want you to know who
said and did what?  Why is the author afraid of the confirmation process?
 
--- --- ---
 
"As you recall...if any, feathers (sigh)"
 
The author first set us up, and here is the pitch and hook.  A lot of
statements are being made that drive the reader towards a single
inescapable goal: colloidal silver works.  These statements are designed
to allow no other conclusion.  The author assures this by preventing the
reader to test or critically review the background to each set of
statements.  In other words, the reader is left to the honesty of the
author.  In effect, the author is saying, "trust me...."
 
You DID notice the author only says, "[with] a sensitive, digital ohm
meter one can verify that something is there"?  Is it silver?  Is it
household dust?  Even water, supposed to have a pH of 7, can register
one or two points into the acidic or alkaline region, depending on the
dissolved minerals, amount of carbon dioxide, etc.  Nothing here supports
the statements made.  As far as we know, the author could be measuring
table salt contamination.
 
--- --- ---
 
"Colloidal Silver has been clinically proven... a few ions of silver"
 
Here, the hook is being set.  The author no longer tries to make the
reader think science on on their side; rather, it is a shotgun approach
designed to overwhelm the reader and convince them of the effectiveness
of the MEDICAL VALUE of colloidal silver.  The reference to Hippocrates
makes the reader think there is a tie to modern medicine that can be
traced back to ancient times, other references attempt to tie CS use to
respected modern agencies.
 
The list of diseases is the point of the hook in the con.  Look what
pre-1938 literature said it would do!!  Why not post-1938 references?
The article ignores the real reason (CS having no medical value), and
suggests a conspiracy--"Colloidal silver was used widely until around 1938
when the FDA came into being and the movement toward synthetic antibiotics
began to emerge"  Like all truly great conspiracy theories, this one taps
into American distrust of governmental agencies, and, even better, the
dislike of rich and powerful drug companies.  Very subtle, very clever.
I just wish I could figure out how to cure MY Eustachian tubes and
ophthalmology!  DAMN the FDA!
 
Nothing here offers any proof.  Nothing; no references, no studies, no
data, no proof.  Instead, the author suggests the removal of colloidal
silver as a medical agent was because of a "movement toward synthetic
antibiotics."  Here is the test to see the author's suggestion is correct.
Make a list of pre-1938 antibiotics, and see which ones are still in use
today.  Take the antibiotics from the 'discard' list, and see WHY they
are no longer being used.  In most cases, the substance is either
dangerous (mercury compounds, agents that cause cancer), no longer works
(strain-resistant bacteria), or never had much functionality (colloidal
silver).  Before you start believing there is an anti-colloidal silver
conspiracy, just consider aspirin is extremely cheap, is effective, and
has been used for a very, very long time.  Additionally, it is a NATURAL
substance!  Drug makers NEVER dispose of a cheaply manufactured drug, IF
IT HAS MEDICAL VALUE!  It is just too profitable!
 
There is ONE other comment.  THROUGHOUT the page, the author consistently
confuses the issues by lumping groups together, so the effectiveness of
one supports the use of another.  For example, burn units use silver
compounds (chloride, nitrate, iodate, etc.) in burn creams and
antiseptics.  The author associates that use with colloidal silver, even
though they are completely different substances.  In this case, the author
is saying metallic silver is effective because a compound of silver and
other elements is effective.  As ANY chemist will point out, if that were
true, then eating elemental sodium or breathing elemental chorine gas
would be a good thing to do; after all, together, they form ordinary table
salt.  Elemental compounds have UNIQUE characteristics, which you would
understand if you were rear-ended with a bottle of silver peroxide
(Ag2.O2) in your trunk, instead of the silver oxide (Ag2.O) you thought
you were buying.  A single oxygen makes an explosive difference!
Bacteriostatic is NOT necessarily "antibiotic," nor is it necessarily
"antiseptic" or "astringent."  The same is true of how the author
discusses silver, confusing silver ions with silver compounds, and with
metallic silver, something a high school student taking basic chemistry
knows is false.  Yet, the author consistently uses these terms as if they
are interchangeable.  In another example, the author confuses the use of
COLLOIDAL SILVER CHLORIDE with colloidal silver, as if they were the same.
These arguments don't even broach the subject of dilution strength.  The
author lists a silver compound that, in one dilution, kills germs.  Yet,
no mention is made of how that dilution compares to the concentration of
silver particles in a bottle of colloidal silver.  Again, either the
author is being duplicitous, or just simply obtuse.  Maybe both.
 
--- --- ---
 
"Angstrom, named after Jonas Anders...and do not settle out"
 
A colloidal suspension is simply an uniform mixture of two substances,
and can be a gas, liquid or solid or any combination; it just means the
colloid (silver in our case) is uniformly distributed throughout the
other.  A colloid is a substance consisting of very tiny particles,
usually between 1 and 1000 nanometers in diameter, and suspended in a
continuous medium (water in our case).
 
Elemental silver has the highest electrical and thermal conductivity of
all metals.  Metallic silver is basically a lattice work of silver atoms
stacked on each other.  Silver ions have a positive electrical charge
because they have been stripped of one or more electrons.  I am not sure
of what the author is describing here, but I am not a chemist, so I took a
print-out of the web page to the MU chemistry department and discussed it
with four different professors.  They weren't sure, either.  Generally,
pure metals have little or no charge; the charge of a transitional metal
like silver is dependent upon the number of lost electrons.  Thus, metals
generally have positive charges.  There is the confusing part.  Ions are
generally individual atoms or molecules, NOT clumps of pure substances.
Why?  Because like charges repel each other.  Silver ions don't clump
together, they repel each other!  Whatever the author is trying to say,
it needs to be done better.  There is just enough information in this
section to appear on the surface as informative, but in reality, there is
next to nothing being said.  Is the intent here clever deception, or does
the author actually know what they are talking about?
 
--- --- ---
 
"Colloidal silver works in several ways.  Its very effective
anti-microbial properties have resulted in use by doctors for the
treatment of AIDS, Cancer, Epstein Barr, Gonorrhea, Lyme's Disease,
Candida, fungus, warts and parasites."
 
And yet the FDA says just the opposite: "FDA is not aware of any
substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of OTC colloidal
silver ingredients or silver salts for disease conditions." (see above
for reference).
 
This is a reckless and misleading statement.  It can potentially harm
people and their pets.  This is WHY I come out so strong against colloidal
silver.  If colloidal silver works so well against AIDS, then why in the
hell are millions of humans DYING from the disease?  Why is cancer not
cured?  If this is true, then in towns like Reno and Silver City, the
people should be disease free because the silver ppm counts are in excess
of those found in colloidal silver!  This statement ALONE makes the entire
argument for colloidal silver invalid because it is so obviously false.
As far as I am concerned, this statement is criminal, immoral and
unethical.  It offers a glimmer of hope to those unable to critically
review the statement, or those who are clutching at straws.  The author
should be ashamed of him- (or her-) self for placing such a statement
into print without ANY supporting references and data.  This person is
selling you a colloidal silver Brooklyn Bridge!
 
--- --- ---
 
"In order to understand...organisms causing the illness"
 
According to the Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, pH
stands for "potential of Hydrogen", not "parts hydrogen."  It is a
measurement of the acidity or alkalinity of a substance.  This is just a
single mistake in a paragraph of utter nonsense.  For example, the pH of
normal human arterial blood ranges from 7.36-7.44, yet in the paragraph,
the author says, "Outside the cell, the fluid surrounding the cells will
usually realize an acidic pH near 4.0."  The non-cellular fluid surrounding
the cells of complex multicellular organisms is essentially the same as
blood plasma (at least for our purposes).  While plasma pH surrounding the
cell may be a bit different than the arterial blood pH of 7.36-7.44, if it
was pH 4, the animal would die.  No, strike that--it would have been dead
long before then.
 
I am not going to comment on "the oxygen levels in the body respond by
decreasing."  I am not sure what the author was smoking when this was
penned.  Something HAD to be decreasing their oxygen levels at the time.
How can colloidal silver influence blood oxygen levels?  This is not just
nonsense, it is nonsense on steroids.
 
But besides the fact that a ferret having a plasma ph level of 4 would be
dead, what in the hell does that have to do with contracting rabies virus?
Or a common cold?  Or anthrax?  You get such diseases NOT because of pH
changes, but by a lack of specific resistance to the organism.  In other
words, healthy people, who have perfect pH and all that stuff, can STILL
get sick, even IF they are taking a boat-load of colloidal silver!  Does
the author have to courage to inhale a "line" of anthrax spores, then
treat it with a CS nasal spray?  I don't think so!
 
I really have to watch myself here, because this paragraph is so full of
inaccuracies that I can pick things apart for pages on pages.  Any vet,
physiologist, doctor, chemist, or "eddycated" chimp on this list can
confirm this paragraph is, well, "inaccurate."  Yeah, that's it.
Inaccurate.
 
--- --- ---
 
"Interestingly, colloidal silver...intestinal elimination systems"
 
This is, perhaps, the most erroneous aspect of the colloidal silver
debate.  So which enzymes are affected?  "Metabolism, growth, regeneration
and survival"?  Interesting, because that covers just about every enzyme
used by ferrets and humans alike!  Enzymes are complex proteins that
contain multiple sites having various charges.  These charges cause the
protein to "ball up" like a wadded length of dental floss, generally with
just one or two reactive areas exposed to the outside environment.  These
enzymes are remarkable in that an enzyme used by a bacteria to form ATP,
can be the same as used by humans.  There is a term called "conservation"
in biochemistry.  It refers to different organisms using the same
substance to do the same job.  For example, melanin is conserved
throughout the animal kingdom, with very little variation (and those
variants are also conserved).  RNA and DNA are extremely conserved, and
is the building blocks of all life on Earth.  Likewise are most metabolic
enzymes.  In other words, the enzymes ferrets and humans use for
"metabolism, growth, regeneration and survival" are essentially the same
for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, yeast, fungi, and parasites.  Sure,
minor differences exist, but all in all, they are about the same.
 
So how can colloidal silver selectively injure bad organisms and leave the
good ones alone?  How does colloidal silver work without generating harm
to normal body cells that use the same "enzymes" for cellular respiration
as bacteria?  This is THE key point; if it harms bacteria, yeast, fungi
and parasites, what is the magic preventing it from harming "good" cells?
The level of detail here suggests the author has access to scientific data
that tracks how colloidal silver does its job.  Where is it?  Why hasn't
it been published?  Has it been independently verified?  Or it is just a
bunch of hooey, invented to sell a modern day snake oil?  Back up the
claims or back down.
 
--- --- ---
 
"This process is so effective that no pathogen has been recorded to mutate
against colloidal silver or live in its presence for more than 6 minutes."
 
Wow!!  Considering there are bacteria living in the water cooling atomic
piles, colloidal silver kills bacteria better than radiation!!  Rubbish.
If it will kill a pathogen, then what makes it benign to human and ferret
cells?  This sentence is absurd; all I need is a single spore of Bacillus
to render the statement false.  And the millions of dollars spent to
sterilize spececraft before sending them to other planets?  Call NASA!  A
couple of bottles of OTC colloidal silver liberally spritzed on the metal,
and the deed is done!  As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon!"
 
As for the mutation part, prove it!  If colloidal silver is so toxic to
germs, etc., etc., that they don't have time to mutate to a more resistant
form, when why is it harmless to ferret and human body cells?  Repeat the
maroon quote here.
 
--- --- ---
 
"Why is there no toxicity...overdose using colloidal silver"
 
If a substance can kill germs, yada, yada, yada, then it can kill human
and ferret body cells.  Suggesting CS magically kills one while ignoring
the other is either being obtuse or duplicitous.  Maybe it defines
hyperbole.  You chose.
 
--- --- ---
 
The rest of the article is primarily concerned with building a better CS
trap, which I will not comment on, restricting the argument specifically
to colloidal silver.
 
As I said before, I really appreciate the kindness of placing this link
for all to read.  It really helped me in showing the members of the
ferret community how colloidal silver proponents twist, confuse, mislead,
and just outright astonish me in their misrepresentations (or level of
learning).  It has been extremely helpful.
 
I doubt if the colloidal silver proponents will stop sharpening their
swords in response to this rebuttal.  Their belief is a religion to them,
and they will find some way to deny this critical review, if just to
ignore it.  I am sure I will get yet another dozen hateful emails accusing
me of being part of some conspiracy, and that colloidal silver has saved
their ferret's life.  That's life in the big city, and if I wasn't able
to face the heat, I wouldn't douse the fire with gasoline.
 
There is a bottom line to all this.  If colloidal silver worked, then
medical and scientific literature would support it.  It would be concise,
show data, and establish some type of toxicity levels.  Proper
concentrations of colloidal silver, targeted to specific microorganisms,
would be suggested.  Yet, there is none.  What is published is confused
misrepresentation, placed in the public view as if the statements were
proved or above challenge.  They do not stand up to critical review, they
do not stand up to common sense, and they do not stand up to established
standards of debate.  Yet with all this, I would be the first to jump on
the colloidal silver bandwagon if just a single paper, scientifically
done, was able to prove colloidal silver could to just a tenth of what
is claimed.  All proponents of colloidal silver have to do is prove the
claims.
 
Bob C
-----
 
After reviewing my post (the cc copy), and checking the links, it is
possible they may not work as copied.
 
This is what you can do instead. Go to the GPO acccess site at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/multidb.html
 
From there, click on Federal Register 1996 (or Federal Register 1999) and
type in "colloidal silver" in the resulting search box.  The articles in
question will be at the top of the resulting list.
 
Sorry about the links.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 3775]