Typically, most people find out about colloidal silver through friends and are inspired by their anecdotes. If their interest is captured they either go and buy some at a health store or online. With a quick search, I just found a 500 ml colloidal silver solution of 10 ppm (parts per million) for $37.95 (AUD). More prudent consumers will investigate further by doing a search on the internet. A Google search brought up the following six websites first:
If you based your view on just those websites, I would suggest that most people would never consider using colloidal silver. The views generally suggest that there are no scientific merits to using colloidal silver and considerable risks. As someone academically trained to do literature reviews, it is obvious to me that the sites listed above represent one parameter of the colloidal silver debate. It should also be remembered that the ranking of Google searches are often determined by commercial interests rather than the quality of the content! However, these sites do highlight important risks that should be considered, if you do decide to use colloidal silver. For example:
- Argyria has been proposed as a side effect of excessive exposure to silver. Argyria is expressed by a change in the colour of the skin to a blue/greyish shade. This occurs when substantial amounts of colloidal silver are consumed over a sustained period. This side effect is medically benign in nature but clearly aesthetically undesired. You can find a good review here on Argyria (https://healthjade.com/argyria/). And here’s a good review on silver toxicity. The article notes that the EPA established an oral reference dose of 0.005 mg/kg/day for silver (see: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/fs_G-75_1-Jun-93.pdf).
- The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through press releases, has stated “colloidal silver is not effective for treating any disease or condition.” This statement was made in March, 2020 in response to companies making claims with respect to the potential for colloidal silver combatting the coronavirus. (see: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-update-fda-and-ftc-warn-seven-companies-selling-fraudulent-products-claim-treat-or. In contrast to the FDA’s position, an academic paper (Lv et al, 2014) suggested otherwise and was the impetus for creating this site.
- Colloidal silver may interfere with the absorption of other drugs, particularly antibiotics.
- Colloidal silver has not been tested for nursing and pregnant women.
- Many of the claimed medicinal benefits are claimed not to have been tested in human trials.
The key lessons from the above are that if you ingest colloidal silver it should be (1) in small quantities or not at all, (2) not in conjunction with other medication, and (3) consult your doctor if you’re not sure. The other issue of critical importance is, “How can you be sure of the quality of the colloidal silver?” This is were producing your own colloidal silver has great benefits because the onus is on you! This blog post addresses these issues https://silversolutions9999.com/blog-how-to-use-your-kit/ and of course, on the homepage, you can purchase a colloidal silver kit.
When I’m tutoring university students at the Australian National University on how to research new literature there are two key points to keep in mind. First, look for review articles on the topic. This is important because it gives a broad understanding of the topic and what is being debated. Second, only quote a source if you have actually read the original source material, and if you are not able to cite the original source material, at least mention where it was referenced from. Preferably you don’t use the source if you can’t cite the reference. The important point to note with our investigation so far into colloidal silver is that we have only looked at the first five or six links from a google search. This is not a review and we must also look elsewhere. Science journals would be my next port of call.
But can we trust scientific research? This article creates some pretty serious doubts:
The article asserts that a leaked conversation between two Editors-in-Chief of prestigious science journals alleges the corruption of scientific reporting by Big Pharma. “The Lancet’s boss, Horton, said: “Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data, because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want to conclude… This is very, very serious!“
Here’s some interesting alternate history on the foundational roots of modern medicine provided by Charlotte Iserbyt, “Supposedly, in 1910 an educator named Flexner was funded by the AMA, and Rockefeller monies funneled through the Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of education to write a report recommending non-drug treatment medical schools be closed, the remaining schools merge with established universities, and that these universities be funded in part by huge grants provided by the tycoons of the day. While the result improved medical training due to increased funding, it wiped out effectively/virtually all study of non-drug therapy methods (in keeping with Rockefeller’s heavy investment in drug & chemical industries & desires for monopoly control of various economic sectors). The US Government & AMA closed/defunded most non-conforming medical schools, battling at one point with the chiropractors to have them also snuffed out of legitimate business.
G. Edward Griffin discusses how doctors are educated today and particularly the focus on the bias towards pharmaceutical solutions. This follows with the loss of freedoms to use medicinal alternatives that don’t come under big pharma’s umbrella.
Discussion on Big Pharma by Robert Kennedy Jr:
This link gives a brief insight into the forces behind addressing the CORVID-19 pandemic. Not surprisingly, politics and greed are predominant factors rather than common sense and science: