Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Medical uses of silver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryanspir (talk | contribs) at 15:58, 27 April 2013 (→Colloidal silver). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Quackwatch

<removed my comment copied and placed here out of context by Ryan> Zad68 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have create a new section as your comment was off-topic. About deadhorse - I'm not repeating the same arguments. Ryanspir (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have retracted uniting NCCAM and Quackwatch since they are different. So according to my latest discussion on wp:medrs there is a strong consensus not to use orphaned primary sources. Actually LA times and Quackwatch are similar on this point. Both are considered as primary sources and should be included only as adjunct to a secondary reliable source per the discussion on WP:MEDRS. This is a new argument that came in light during recent WP:MEDRS strong consensus.Ryanspir (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be alone (and therefore not representing consensus) on this point. -- Scray (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no consensus for removal. Yobol (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Yobol and Scray that there is no consensus for removal of LA Times, NCCAM, and/or Quackwatch.66.120.181.218 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Desoto10 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the content should stay for reasons which have been repeatedly stated previously. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan you appear to be saying that the LA Times article and Quackwatch are primary sources, and based the idea that "orphaned" primary sources (meaning, primary sources not used alongside a secondary source that discusses them), they should be removed from this article. This argument is flawed because the LA Times article and Quackwatch are not primary sources. Zad68 04:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember in one of the discussions it was mentioned that LA Times article by itself is considered as [a poor] primary source. Because by itself it's not a research and in virtue of absence of reliable secondary sources it's not based on research thats why I guess it was mentioned as poor. However, as you say it's not a primary source, what is it then? Ryanspir (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here it is, have found it. It's right in the WP:MEDRS - "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." "For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources." Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times piece is not being used to support biomedical information; its chief topic is how "the FDA and FTC target peddlers of colloidal silver and other potentially harmful products". The statement quoted from it relates to the long history of fraud associated with colloidal silver. WP:MEDRS states that "the high-quality popular press ..." [in which we might count the LA Times] "... can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article." (my bolding). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, support Alexbrn. However the article says its a quack, meaning that it's not effective for the prescribed conditions and that is biomedical information. Ryanspir (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times is relaying that as the position of the US regulatory authorities, making it a secondary source in this respect. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to respectfully disagree with your opinion. The US regulatory authority is FDA. http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/SafetyAlertsAdvisories/ucm184087.htm that is their advisory regarding cs. There is no mention that they consider cs to be ineffective.

Also:

1) May I also bring your attention, that even if some regulatory authorities would call cs ineffective without actual clinical trials that would be a speculation. 2) Even if US FDA would decide without clinical trials that it's ineffective we couldn't include it in the article, because expert's opinion is not a secondary source and it is US centric. However this clause if moot since US FDA hasn't stated they see cs as ineffective.

Per WP:MEDRS and in my humble opinion we should not use any primary source without adjunct secondary source to imply that cs is not effective. That is why I'm supporting the motion to consider cs at this time as 'not proven to be effective' due to the fact that there are no secondary sources proving that cs is effective either.

We ought to consider a big number of anecdotal reports where people would get benefits due to using cs IMHO. There are millions of cs bottles that have been consumed by hundreds of thousands of people around the world for the last 20+ years. Many of them use cs again and again and swear by it. Do you think its possible that all of them experience placebo effect and are being illusioned towards some non-existent efficiency? Even if we would assume that somehow very big number of people are experiencing placebo effects, how about the animals that were cured using cs? They don't have placebo effect AFAIK :). Ryanspir (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "In 1999, the FDA banned claims of therapeutic value for over-the-counter colloidal silver products." Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Banned claiming, it doesn't imply that it's considered ineffective. Currently it's considered 'not proven to be effective' by USFDA towards ingestion. Meaning that it is in their opinion that it may or may not be effective and no determination has been made towards either, thus one shall not make claims. In fact, all dietery supplements that are sold in the USA has been banned from claiming, that doesn't mean that they are not effective. Ryanspir (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so selling this stuff (how far unproven shades into disproven is a matter of opinion) is, ipso facto, quackery – in line with what is quoted from the article. As had been said, this is a WP:DEADHORSE. Your continued return to this topic is a case of WP:IDHT in my view. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to respectfully disagree. All dietery supplements cannot claim therapeutic effect. However Zad has said there are 8000 articles on PMID for alternative medicine. Some of them are reliable secondary reviews that are proving effectiveness. An example could be st. John's Wort. However even in the presence of reliable secondary sources they are banning from claiming. So, as you can see banning from claiming isn't correlated and predisposes that FDA consider them ineffective. Being banned from claiming doesn't imply that FDA see it as ineffective. And, as I have said, that even if they would do, that would still be moot, because experts opinion that is not came as a result of clinical trials is a mere speculation. But again, the US FDA do not say that. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, regarding "However Zad has said there are 8000 articles on PMID for alternative medicine.": I request that you do not make any mention of what you think my opinions are about anything. If you want to refer to something I have said, please provide a diff or a link to the conversation that includes what I said in content. Do not attempt to paraphrase. Thank you. Zad68 12:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding shading I don't agree with it. Unproven is uncertainty, disproven is a certainty. If we would like to use primary sources we need secondary sources backing it with certainty per WP:MEDRS. We cannot chain it like that: 1) consider that experts body opinion is a secondary source. 2) Then consider that unproven means disproven. That is wp:syn in my humble opinion. The issue is not a deadhorse, as there is ongoing discussion about using primary sources on wp:medrs and wp:med. Ryanspir (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mastcell comment

"Secondly, please be aware that your assessment of consensus may be complicated by the fact that at least one editor (me) has chosen to limit further interaction with you, due to what I feel is your unwillingness to heed or consider anyone else's input and your disregard for this site's content policies. MastCell Talk 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)"

May I kindly ask to reconsider your opinion? I agree with many things of Blakbeue and Wdford for example and consider their inputs, as well as of all the editors. Interestingly, I also have agreed with your two suggestions: One appeared at the DRN discussion and the other one regarding creating a separate article for cs. I've always called and continue to call to have a genuine discussion based on AGF regarding all the points in which we do not have a full understanding of each other. My goal is not to prove my point, or my position or my views, my goal is to develop a balanced article for over-hyped substance. Ryanspir (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver-coated endotracheal breathing tubes

We say the following:

Endotracheal breathing tubes coated with silver reduce the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) and delay its onset, although no benefit is seen in the duration of intubation, the duration of stay in intensive care or the mortality rate.

citing three 2012 reviews

  • PMID 22645207 a review in the BMJ
  • PMID 22744316 a review in Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases
  • PMID 23528117 a systematic review in Journal of Evidence Based Medicine

I can't access the full version of these but I'm concerned by the degree of confidence with which we say this product reduces the incidence of VAP, when the abstract of PMID 23528117 says, "The limited evidence from meta-analysis of two RCTs showed that using silver-coated ETTs reduced the incidence of VAP, microbiologic burden, and device-related adverse events among adult patients. Additional rigorous randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings."

I've added the bold text:

Limited evidence suggests endotracheal breathing tubes coated with silver may reduce the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) and delay its onset, although no benefit is seen in the duration of intubation, the duration of stay in intensive care or the mortality rate.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently tried to fix the grammar of that bit and may have cast too positive a perspective in the process. Your changes are better. Thanks. Desoto10 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colloidal silver

Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum. Article talk pages are for making specific suggestions to improve our articles, not to post your personal testimonials.

My observation tells me, that mostly people who have tried cs are considering it favorable and people who didn't try, but know about it from information sources are considering it unfavorable. While this fact should not affect the editors and the article in the ideal world, we are not yet living in one and Wikipedia realizes it per WP:BIAS.

I was born without any information regarding cs :). And wasn't aware of it up until a few years ago. Out of interest I decided to try it, because I have had some continuous problems with my bladder that various anti-biotics couldn't clear. I have purchased one bottle of homemade cs and it produced a positive effect, however I must admit that it didn't result in cure.

Once I have developed problems in my stomach, after eating some bad food. A typical food poisoning. In that case cs has cleared everything and resulted in full cure within a short period of time. My stomach was gurgling and almost immediately after drinking cs it subsided and all the symptoms vanished and the stool became normal.

I have read claims that it protects against colds and so when I went to an area where many people would cough and have running nose I decided to take it because I would stay, sleep and eat in their community for about a week. From my childhood I have had problems with tonsils, to the point that a specialist had advised to surgically remove them. I didn't do that operation and is generally very susceptible on getting colds. Almost anytime I'm around people who are coughing, I'm getting a cold, especially if a share a meal with them. This time I was walking with my head up among all that sneezing and coughing as if protected with a magical shield. :) And, I didn't develop cold, so it has worked in this case.

My general opinion about cs is: it seems to affect many conditions without curing them, just giving a relieve or some level of improvement. Therefore I think more research into cs should be committed that would result in more effective action and penetration to various tissues. I think current cs doesn't penetrate well to many tissues.

While I find cs somewhat effective, I'm interested in a balanced article without pro- or neg- inclination. Ryanspir (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly avoid to restructure my input. To clarify, my own story with cs was posted in relation to WP:BIAS. In my opinion this article is biased and majority of the editors are biased, and that is including myself. Such systematic bias is being recognized by the Wikipedia as a normal phenomenon.
I'm suggesting to the editors to try to drink the cs. If they will feel no benefit, so they are sure they are on the right way to discredit cs. If however they will feel benefit, they might be inclined to take a look at the 15+ peer reviewed articles Medline indexed and peer reviewed. Ryanspir (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver&oldid=552431930"