Colloidal Silver

[KathyM]

*sigh* I give up.

He *did* use blanket statements such as:

So many people are looking for quick cures, and instant fixes, and willing to give money to herbalists and naturalists, etc. even though the proof is overwhelming that they do nothing, or even worse, make you sicker.

Which is why I posted those links, if you'd read through you'd see that I didn't post them to back up the use of specific treatments, but to show that Bignose's blanket statements about ALL natural medicines causing more harm than good as being misleading and not factual.

It's all very well being anti-natural or skeptic, but you can't go round giving out bad information when you haven't got the evidence to back you up, that's not openminded or fair to those seeking knowedge.

I personally am open-minded either way, and willing to learn - but the minute Bignose came on here and did the condescending lecture, I knew I wasn't going to take anything he said seriously - and that's what I got told off for on other threads, so it can't be one rule for one and another for another. I'm sorry to Bignose, because by making silly blanket statements like he did, he's rubbished the other information, which may or may not be good. If he wanted seriously to help then maybe in future he'll think about the way he posts. He's proven he's not openminded, so I personally have no desire to read a word he says on this subject, as I'm only interested in the views of those that are openminded and unbiased.

Now instead of jumping in and causing a fight, can anyone else offer me practical experience?

ETA: Bignose - I'll give your study the benefit of the doubt as and when you can post dosages and strengths used, thanks

 

[annka5]

I could wade in with my interpretation of who meant what... but...

For what it's worth, to me there are clearly some medicinal products derived from naturally-occuring substances which do work to cure problems. However, logically speaking, they are no less likely to cause nasty side-effects than any man-made chemical.
Unforuntely, there just isn't enough money in researching all the possible additives / medicines for use with ornamental fish for there to be definitive and rigourous scientific studies on everything that can/has been/is used. So, you have to take a step back and decide when you have "enough" evidence for your own judgement.
Equally, whilst peoples experience is useful, it's going to be pretty much impossible to replicate the same set of circumstances in using it yourself - concentrations, temp, water chemistry, fish species, or age, or ailment, and a never-ending list of other variables which COULD effect how the item acts in your own tank. How important these factors are are themselves not known. Again, can only be a judgement call.
So, we're going to be in a situation where you aren't completely sure.
Personally, I would only be happy to try something like that if I had little other option.

 

[KathyM]

Thanks Annka5 - that's a good post for me to mull over

I think to be honest, I should be just as careful about using any treatment, even those made for fish. It's also worth mulling over the fact that at least one leading manufacturer is making a silver based treatment, and there are several others making natural treatments (Melafix and Pimafix, etc etc). Then there are the risks of using accepted medicines, just as risky IMO, but don't seem to get much of a blasting in the fish keeping circles. Maybe with more manufacturers choosing to go natual, the stigma attached to it by many folks will be dissolved to some degree?

I'm a big fan of using alternative therapies - have used them palliatively on a terminally ill dog with great effect, which I truly believe prolonged her life (while she had a good QOL), as the conventional route couldnt help her. There is some evidence to suggest everyday preservatives are cancer causing, and I'm trying to look into "natural" fish keeping as much as I have looked into natural pet care. The next step is looking into more natural feeding for them, but I also thought looking into natural remedies would be a great idea too.

 

[wuvmybetta]

I would hazard to guess that Wuv has great success with it because she uses it with bettas, who don't rely on their gills very much anyway

True. But I've used it with other fish as well with great success. A friend of mine has used it directly in her reef tank at times, when her clowns came down with some fungus, it worked.

It's also worth mulling over the fact that at least one leading manufacturer is making a silver based treatment

Oh really? Who's that?


Interesting thread none the less.

 

[OohFeeshy]

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=98539

Theres some good links on there.

Even if it doesn't work, you're unlikely to rapidly kill fish by using it as a disease treatment.

In all honesty I wouldn't trust www.quackwatch.com, they are muttering 'rubbish' to anything they feel hasn't been 'properly scientificly endorsed' when in many cases it does, work, even if it does come down to the placebo effect. I'd prefer a remedy that gets me to 'cure' mysef to something with as many possible side eefects as most 'typical' medicines anyday.

 

[andywg]

So feeshy you are advocating the sale of a "cure" even if it was in fact the placebo effect?

If that is the case, I have some wonderful Vitamin C tablets that will cure cancer. Only £5 each!

On a more serious note, I truly worry at this thread. Bignose has posted nothing but scientific fact and quoted scientific research papers showing the impact of silver, yet people are making out that he is stating unsupported claims. If anyone wants to check on the dosage and conditions in the trials, check out the papers.

Everyone who wants it to work has discounted it and stated what they want to believe. I have seen just this behaviour before, when I was researching whether the moon landings were faked. All the evidence pointed one way (they happened), those who did not like the evidence discounted it and stated what they wanted to believe.

If the result in the studies quoted by Bignose were not accurate then they would have been pulled up in the peer approval process of science writing. You cannot just write a paper and get it published, it has to be scrutinised to make sure your results are true and the conclusions are sensible.

An example of where this works is on the "Hobbit" person skull which was touted as a new species of human. Now the paper is in peer review a number of people have pointed out it is actually more likely that the skull was that of someone who was handicapped. This prevents wild beliefs and vendettas from influencing scientific opinion.

I am fully aware that a number of natural sources have uses (such as the venom of a sea snail now being synthesised and utilised as a pain killer) but they have to be able to be proven to be effective. That is, the results have to be able to survive interrogation, the system should be a good scientific one with appropriate controls and repetition to ensure freak results and errors are not to blame.

 

[KathyM]

Hi Andy

Very good points However, I was not discrediting what Bignose was saying or the research he quoted, I was discrediting his blanket statement that all natural therapies did more harm than good, and other things, but not discrediting what he said. I purely asked him for the dosages/strengths used in the trial as I have difficulty reading through scientific studies and he already had so would have that information to hand. As I've said before, many beneficial treatments are detrimental in overdose.

Thanks

Kathy

It's also worth mulling over the fact that at least one leading manufacturer is making a silver based treatment

Oh really? Who's that?

King British - "Disease Clear".

I'm not normally a fan of King British, but have seen how well this works (of course I'd be interested to hear others' experiences with it).

 

[Rediahs]

Nobody's "anti-natural" here... we're anti-"things that don't work" and "things that haven't been documented to work".

If something works, there will be proof of it working, and this will be able to be documented and studied and etc. So far there's nothing saying silver is good for fish, and there ARE things saying that it's bad for fish.

You can believe what you like, but it's still going to be silly.

Facts are better than personal stories.

The only closed-mindedness going on, is with the people who can't face facts and prefer to believe whatever they want to believe, and not what is actually documented to be true.

 

[Bignose]

I don't feel like I posted a blanket statement that all natural cures are bad, but if that is the way it was interpreted, I certainly did not mean it that way. It was part of a larger introsepctive wondering why the scientific method carries so little weight today. I'd love to hear what you have to say, Kathy, as to why you are so resistant of the facts as we know them today. It is undeniable, however, that many of the natural remedies that are sold have no proven effect. That is really all I am asking. Proof.

"Present me with reliable information to the contrary and I promise I'll change my mind. For now, unfortunately poor reporting and media distortion affirm my view. To those who believe it still, it comes down to the p-word. Prove it." Dr. Dean Edell in Eat, Drink, and be Merry

Dr. Dean was talking about psychosomatic illnesses, but it is exactly the same idea. I make the same promise. Bring me the proof, and I promise I'll change my mind.

Re: "The links you provided gave some evidence for silver killing viruses in vitro, for topical use of silver in humans, and for the use of St Johns Wort and digitalis. None of these have anything to do with the use of silver in fishes." Exactly. That is what this thread started as, and has (mostly) remained my focus on.

If you want, I can discuss each of those links, but I don't think I need to fill this thread with more.

All I have really been trying to do is ask for proof and asking people to think it out.

 

[KathyM]

Chrissi - again good points. Can I ask though whether you check conventional methods as thoroughly for efficacy and safety before using them?

I seriously doubt most on here do - we all have a tendency to assume if it's sold for fish it's safe for fish. If, like me, you would prefer not to pump your animals full of chemicals without gaining knowledge on them first (and that goes for conventional and alternative in my book), maybe you'd like to start with the King British medicine I told you about - if "conventional" therapies are safe (and I'm not saying for one minute that I feel that way - I'm mixed on that), that would suggest silver is in small amounts too.

Bignose - I'm not scoffing at the study you posted - as I said before i have difficulty getting the correct information from studies. I asked you to pass on the information on dosages/strengths used in that study in layman's terms so we can compare it fairly to what's currently used by many in fishkeeping.

Re: "The links you provided gave some evidence for silver killing viruses in vitro, for topical use of silver in humans, and for the use of St Johns Wort and digitalis. None of these have anything to do with the use of silver in fishes." Exactly. That is what this thread started as, and has (mostly) remained my focus on.

I'd really (honestly) appreciate it if you'd read what I wrote - I didn't use those links as evidence of efficacy in fish keeping and I never said I did. I used them as evidence of some of the many alternative therapies which used to be discarded as "hocus pocus" which have made it into the realms of conventional therapy with great effect (St Johns Wort in particular being a very popular conventionally prescribed treatment now).

 

[Bignose]

Kathy, I'll do the same if you read and respond to what I write:

Here's a synopsis of the questions/comments I made that I would like an answer to:

"Bring me the proof, not just the claims of some manufacturer's website." Post #5

"Re: "but there are benefits to silver usage" please cite these from an unbiased and scientific source. " Post # 12

"All I have really been trying to do is ask for proof and asking people to think it out." Post #24

Can you do it?


And, I can keep citing the science as to how silver is bad for fishes:

Title: Mechanism of acute silver toxicity in marine invertebrates
Author(s): Bianchini A, Playle RC, Wood CM, Walsh PJ
Source: AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 72 (1-2): 67-82 MAR 25 2005

Now note that these are marine fishes, which in the previous article (from Wood as well) above, said were safer from silver because of the salt.

From this very recent article: "Animals were exposed to silver (1 or 10 mu g/L) in seawater for 48h. ... Silver also caused significant changes in Na+,K+-ATPase activity and in both total and intracellular ion (Cl-, Na+, K+, Mg+, and Ca2+) concentrations in different tissues of the three species studied. ... However, they indicate that acute waterborne silver induces significant changes in Na+,K+-ATPase activity and probably affects other mechanisms involved in water and ion transport at the cell membrane level, inducing impairments in water and ion regulation at the cellular level in different tissues of marine invertebrates. These results indicate the need to consider other "toxic sites" than gills in any future extension of the biotic ligand model (BLM) for seawater. "

Just like you wanted the concetration was mentioned. 1 to 10 micrograms per liter. That is 1 to 10 ppb (parts per (American)billion! not just parts per million). At those concentrations, in the 'safer' marine fish and shrimp, the gill function is obstructed and other affects are noticable. The article itself says other toxic sites in the fish's body need to be considered form the models that they are using to date!

Kathy, go to the library and look some of these things up yourself. This 2005 paper is just one of 60 that cites that 1999 paper I cited above. There are lots of people who work on this, they are not all in one big conspiracy. These are the facts as reported. Can you please find some (reputable, verifiable, tested) facts to support your point of view?

 

[KathyM]

Thanks very much Bignose - not in layman's terms, but I'll find someone willing to translate for me.

Bignose - I'm not scoffing at the study you posted - as I said before i have difficulty getting the correct information from studies. I asked you to pass on the information on dosages/strengths used in that study in layman's terms

Kathy, go to the library and look some of these things up yourself.

I've already said several times I have difficulty interpreting scientific studies, I don't think there's any need to rub my nose in it. Just because I said I have trouble understanding them doesn't mean I said they were a conspiracy, I never once said that and I'm finding your tone very insulting and belittling. Not all of us are genius level, some of us have trouble with this kind of terminology, but thanks for making me feel thick. I hope it makes you feel wonderful.

Mods - can you lock this now?

 

[annka5]

OK, some people's skills /knowledge/training are in science. Some peoples skills/knowledge/training is in language. Maybe I'm being unfair in assuming this, but I would imagine Bignose is not trying to make you feel small, just convince you of his argument. I can totally understand why you might think that, though. In the words of my grandmother, "I'll bang yer 'eads together!"

To repeat / rephrase my earlier post: IMO it is very VERY unlikely that the funding to research genuinely new aquarium medication for ornamental fish (particularly natural-based medication) would ever stretch far enough to give conclusive proof of effectiveness vs risk. It's not even a comment on wether or not the medicine works. It just isn't known with firm accuracy.

I don't see how chemicals which occur in nature would be intrinsically safer than those mixed in a test-tube. Is heroin or opium safer or better than ecstacy??! I'm NOT advocating either, obviously. At best, it's highly debateable.

Personally, I would use what I felt was safest and most effective, and logically, I don't much care if it's a chemical derived from a plant or from a test-tube (environmental impact etc assumed to be the same in either case). Both chemicals. Neither likely to be naturally occuring in wherever your fish are from. I just don't see the difference, so am therefore no more against natural medicine than against conventional medicine (i.e. I think both are the same; so long as it works and the side effects aren't worse than the ailment, great).

 

[Bignose]

Kathy,

My tone is maybe slightly frustrated, since 1) you do not answer questions directly when asked (still waiting on the three I highlighted, like show me any evidence from a credible source)

and now 2) I gave you what you wanted, you asked for the concentration used in the studies (1 to 10 ppb).

I had 'translated' earlier, but you seemed to ignore it. Specifically, I said that silver interferes with gill functions. The latest quote goes into more detail. But it is all the same information. I am just trying to present you with evidence, though you do a good job of ignoring it.

Kathy, beliefs are not the same as facts, no matter how much you believe in them.

I find it funny now you ask the thread to be closed, all I have been doing is writing facts. That is not a reason to close a thread. The written word does not convey tone very well, and I have not been trying to make you feel bad, but I have been trying to get you to evaluate the facts as known today.

annka, you are right that most studies are not done on aquarium fish, but many studies are done every year on farmed fish (that is where the real money for fish is at), though zebra danios are also a favorite guinea pig, so to say. Studies that include how to fight ich and bacterial infection, etc. (Farmed fish get them too.) So, there are studies that prove effectiveness of many medicines out there. There is actually an interesting one I saw just a little while ago from a fish farmer that removed ich by significantly increasing the current in his tanks. There are lots of things being studied, including natural remedies, some successful, some not.

 

[KathyM]

Bignose - your tone doesn't come over as "frustrated" - you tone comes across as someone who likes to be right, and who likes to shout as loudly and in as complicated a manner as possible to demean other people. I've asked for this to be closed simply because you've upset and offended me by your posting manner, which has all been about making yourself look clever and "right" and about waving your knowledge of fancy terminology.

How many times do you want me to say "I'm too thick to read studies for you" for you to get the hint that I'm not going to highlight my lack of intelligence by sourcing information that you ask for, for you to pick it apart in scientific terms so you feel superior. Does that make you feel better? I'm too thick to understand. There, you win.

I told you I accept your evidence, I don't see why you still continue to try and belittle and embarrass me. I've asked for this topic to be closed, I understand the mods are busy, but can you let it go now, or do you want a little bit more of a stab at the thicko?

If you wanted to educate it only took manners and patience, not trying to outwit someone with less brains than you to make yourself feel big.