From:
Bob C
Date: 2002-04-30 23:37:00 UTC
Subject: Bob C: Alternative treatments; Colloidal Silver
Q: "At Las Vegas [Ferrets 2002] I heard you say you thought colloidial
silver was a complete waste of time! Why don't you like alternative
treatments?
A: I have nothing against alternative treatments that are effective and
proved safe. However, I've been against the use of colloidal silver for
quite some time, for several reasons, the least of which is that there
is absolutely ZERO research that proves it is even marginally effective.
Oh, I've seen LOTS of claims, but ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has been
published that even comes close to supporting the claims of the merchants.
My other problem is actually more paramount in my mind. Did you know
that penicillin was discovered in 1928, was used extensively, in great
quantities, for the next twenty years, and by 1948 half of the bacterial
species it was used against had developed resistant strains? Today, it
is only minimally effective, and we have had to invent new, more toxic
drugs to do the same thing. The reason for this was the indiscriminate
use--and abuse--of this wondrous discovery by people who never
understood that bacteria were subject to the laws of natural selection.
If creationists refuse to believe in evolution, I hope they never get
infected by a "flesh-eating" bacteria and only have penicillin to get
them by....
The point is, we create our own monsters through the indiscriminate use
of antibiotics. They should NEVER be used EXCEPT with the complete
supervision of a qualified vet who is in direct care of the sick animal.
You can take it that I dislike the use of prophylactic antibiotics
except under rigidly defined, controlled circumstances, such as prior to
surgery with immune-compromized patients. IF colloidal silver was in
that group of substances that acted like an antibiotic, then it should
be controlled like one as well. If it was effective, the last thing we
need is to feed colloidal silver prophylactically to ferrets and
possibly create a super bug that could not only kill our ferrets, but
cross over to humans as well. That is irresponsible and immoral, and I
don't care if saves dozens of ferret's lives. If there is one chance in
a billion that a bacteria could evolve protection against CS and become
a dangerous pathogen, then indiscriminate, prophylactic use is criminal.
But the truth is, I don't think colloidal silver belongs in such a
group. I DO consider it dangerous because I fear it can delay real
treatment, it provides a false sense of hope to users, and it may have
inhibiting qualities to good bacteria and body cells, or damage them as
much (or worse) than the bugs the substance is attempting to kill.
Still, without supporting evidence, I guess my opinion is just the same
as that of people who support using colloidal silver.
So, I took a chance and put my money where my mouth is. I PAID a lab to
take ferret feces (collected at the moment of dropping and transferred
to a sterile nutrient broth (don't ask), then inoculate a series of
blood agar plates, 12 with colloidal silver treatments of various
dilutions (ranging from straight out of a new bottle, to a few drops in
what would be a typical duck soup), 12 with NO treatment, and 12 with
various commonly used antibiotics. These plates were done with the same
care and treatment as for human microbiology, and were evaluated at the
same level.
The results speak for themselves. Of the 12 agar plates treated with
various antibiotics, growth was either inhibited or prevented. Of the
12 plates that received NO treatment, growth was fairly rapid, and after
3 days covered more than 75% of the plate. Of the 12 plates treated
with colloidal silver, the results were EXACTLY the same as those
treated with nothing. In other words, the application of colloidal
silver MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE GROWTH OF INTESTINAL FLORA on the agar
plates. In both the untreated and silver treated plates, growth varied,
but ranged from moderate to heavy, and differences were statistically
insignificant between the two groups in terms of bacterial growth
(colonization), spread, number of species present, presence of fungus,
and size of colonies.
This wasn't a rigidly controlled experiment, although the controls
through the lab met CAP standards, and are standard in treating infected
humans. The tests should be verified independently by others, using
feces from other ferrets eating a variety of diets, and other batches of
colloidal silver (I only used CS from the largest two web-based
retailers). But the results do suggest that the effectiveness of
colloidal silver is much less than suggested by its proponents.
Look for yourself. The accompanying photo shows four blood agar plates
inoculated with bacteria from the ferret feces colony. They were
randomly, blindly selected for the photo. Here is your test: three
plates are either CS plates or untreated, and the remaining plate is the
opposite. Which plates--or plates--were untreated, and which were
covered with CS prior to inoculation? If ANYONE can tell me, I'll shut
up on this subject forever (not just guessing, but saying WHY they think
so).
So the gauntlet is thrown. It is now time for colloidal silver
proponents to fish or cut bait. If they disagree with this little (and
costly) experiment of mine, then duplicate it and prove it faulty. I
will gladly send a copy of my research design to ANY person with a
legitimate interest (i.e., not just curious. but someone attempting to
verify the results).
I have nothing against alternative methods of treatment as long as they
are used carefully, with the participation of a licensed vet, and with
substances that have proven effectiveness (and with quality control).
Unless that can be shown, I consider the case for colloidal silver to be
closed.
Bob C
Attachment 91k (image/jpeg) agar-plates.jpg