| | | Yes, silver is a potent antiseptic and antibiotic.
Like all antibiotics, it works because it is a poison. The idea, with all antibiotics, is to poison the things you don't want, the things that you do want to kill.... more than you poison yourself, in the process. If the poison you choose is potent in relation to the other organisms that are creating risks in your health, and not that potent in poisoning you, there is net benefit available from poisoning yourself...
Silver has been known to be a functional antibiotic for a long time... thousands of years... and it has been used effectively and consistently over the last century in a range of applications, both being incorporated into materials to provide a greater degree of intrinsic resistance to the SPREAD of infections which might be more easily spread by cloth, plastic tubing, needles, or medical instruments, otherwise.
It is indisputable that silver used in cleaning agents works better in disinfecting surfaces... than many other things.
If all those plastic "hazmat" suits you see being worn in photos where ebola issues are being covered were coated with silver... the odds of infecting medical staff when the suits are removed... would be reduced. Etc.
It is indisputable that silver in various forms ( en.wikipedia.org , en.wikipedia.org ) works well as a topical antibiotic, including that it helps to prevent or defeat infections on skin, in the eyes, and in wounds... it works by suppressing infection occurring at surfaces on the body... which doesn't mean that infection is the only issue that exists in disruption of normal healing. Things that prevent infection... might also inhibit healing. Read the links.
The objections to using silver are minimal, and the risks described tend to be vastly less than most alternatives... but, "Generalised argyria with silver accumulation in kidneys, liver and retina has only been found in association with excessive long-term use, or repeated use on severe and heavily inflamed burns." Like anything else... don't use too much. Don't use it improperly.
Silver kills things on surfaces... and it works inside your body... which doesn't mean internal use is the same as external use... or that it doesn't have different or greater risks when used differently...
Recently, nanotechnology has shown that particle sizes are an important factor in ALTERING the functions of many materials... with changes ranging from variations in basic performance in chemistry... to changes that result from smaller particles operating in completely different ways than larger particles do, or working in places (including in body chemistry) where larger particles simply can't get to, or otherwise don't function the same way. It is not the case that a nanoparticle is simply a smaller bit of the same stuff... that works the same as a larger particle. A nanoparticle is in fact a different material... with different potency and different functions... good and bad... and you should not simply assume that any material that is benign in common use is therefore going to be similarly "safe" in nano form... rather than toxic in new ways.
So, use of nanosilver requires studying, and its use cannot be automatically condoned as being similarly low risk as other known low risk uses of silver in other forms...
But, without considering that variable in unique risks of nano-particle toxicity, newer studies exist:
http://phys.org/news7264.html
http://www.nanoscalereslett.com/content/3/4/129
I'm sure there are others, and probably many that are more recent...
Those studies are pretty suggestive in terms of what works in particle sizes and concentrations... but, they don't pretend to address the issues of fundamental risk, or safety...
And, you need to note the difference between in vitro... and in vivo... MATTERS. What happens in a test tube... is not the same as what happens inside your body.
It is also true, as critics will point out, that there is an active self-interest that exists on the part of the drug companies, that means the industry operates to suppress the development of alternatives that work... They WILL work to suppress alternatives that aren't profitable for them, that will deny them profits if the alternatives supplant patented medicines. At the same time, it is true that self interest on the part of those pushing alternatives they are selling... means you shouldn't trust them any more... those selling nano-silver will claim it is proven safe... without having any proof.
But, if the question is ebola... if use of nano-silver might help prevent it, or suppress viral replication enough to limit the impact of its full expression... if the risks in taking nano-silver may be WAY less than the risk of mortality from contracting the ebola virus and not doing whatever you can to minimize its impacts ?
Would I consider taking it as a prophylactic, or if I suspected I had an exposure risk ?
Sure. It is reasonable to suspect it might work quite well... and the risks that aren't fully defined aren't really any different in character, and certainly don't appear any greater, than the similar risks inherent in taking any of the other completely untested experimental treatments being used...
But, I wouldn't take it without having a really good reason... and I might not choose it instead of another alternative, if I had alternative choices to evaluate... and, I'd not assume that any random source you find is one you should trust...
Of course, the reason the CDC doesn't like it... is because the drug companies don't like it... which is because if it works... it will eliminate a whole bunch of market potential that they currently expect to be able to develop and exploit... billions of dollars... if they can keep things like it from being proven effective.
Particularly given existing limits in the availability of other, similarly unproven, experimental treatments... with no shortage in patients... there is ZERO rational excuse for failing to test its efficacy in comparison with other experimental treatments...
|
|
