Colloidal Silver

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well I'm certainly glad I didn't spend that much time to go over the small details of each area so people *would* know what they're doing, and I encouraged anyone to ask if they need help.

This bite alone explains everything.
So we have established point 1. You never actually go through on actually thinking about the subject.

Hell I even added the fact of the moon's affect on the solution being made, of which I thought for sure would be blasted but I suppose because of your inescapable viewpoint this was just icing on the cake.

So we establish point number 2, even you think that the amount of surface of the moon facing the earth that is also exposed to sun is silly.

Essentally you guys are just shooting the messenger here.

This would be true if you had a message.

Silver has been known to have these properties for a long time now and was used in many areas.

Then you assert that it was known to have this effect, I will not ask you to back it up, but listen to this. "Astrology has been known to have the ability to predict the future".

I feel you guys (As you've no doubt shown me now) can nitpick over just about anything, and never seem to take the time to think these things through.

Yes and the fact that you have failed step 1 had nothing to do with it?

Here's a page with many references, and please check to see if the article is still up in its respected journal.

I'm still missing to see any document that demonstrates the actual effectiveness of "colloidal silver" has an anti-septic without poisoning the host. If you say you have done the experiment, then there shouldn't be a problem for you to make such document, or is there?

This isn't started by me, and the design is that of Bob Becks... Which he gave away for free, and he's the holder of a few patents none the less.

Oh great the word of a idiot with some patents makes everything more credible then if it was presented by an idiot alone.

The whole notion that I'm somehow more wrong when I present and go through the process in the cheapest manner possible is absurd, and I did that specifically for people like you.

Point 3, even you admit that the said guy is an idiot. As for the claim that you have done it cheaper "for people like me", I advise you to take a look at the very first post on this topic (it is yours isn't it?) and tell me what device did you said to build? So what does that make you? (Yeap an idiot)

To scalyblue: I'm not sure why it's like that as well, but it does output the ~5hz square wave. See the attached vid for a rough demo of the wave and the device, rough is the key word. (You can just use alligator clips instead of any RCA jack)

This is quite impressive I might add for someone who doesn't even know how to operate an oscilloscope.

Whether or not it works is the key, and I've shown it does for myself.

You have shown? You have yet to justify any of your points, and that is why I wasted 3 posts of beating in your head for having nothing to present even without addressing any of your claims.

Your whole spiel about claims is understandable, but that isn't what I'm getting at... In fact I've told you many times that I can list whatever claims and research I can find and it still won't matter to skeptics with a stick up their ass...

Give me the example of 1 single peer-reviewed document that states that colloidal silver is capable of killing any microbe without poisoning the host. The last part is important, because I can extremely easy make the case that fire kills almost any microbe and yet we do not set people on fire to cure them.

Which is exactly why I started off with basic claims and an experiment to back it up. You don't have to prove that drinking it cures AIDS, that's overshooting it quite a bit, just prove if it works on whatever little test you want to try.

It wouldn't just be over shooting, it would be extremely silly to argue with the statement that colloidal silver prevents respiration and that because of it could get you rid of organisms deprived of metabolism to begin with much less respiration cycle for that matter.

My milk test was small, insignificant, and almost meaningless but at least now I can say that whatever silver is deposited into the water shows anti-bacterial effects. There's a big claim going around that I've been striving to not mention but it's the claim of "650 different microbes killed".

Care to back it up, with let's say a scientific experimental report!

This claim only makes sense if the silver attacks the microbes in a similar fashion, and the oxygen-enzyme being disabled is the theory behind that.

Does it only make sense if silver attacks microbes? Are you sure you want to stand behind this?
And how does one come up with the theory that oxy-gen-enzyme being disabled when they have already admitted that they don't know what it is doing or if it has done anything in the first place? Here is a fun fact, did you know that many microbes don't even use oxygen in their metabolism?

Milk test = AIDS being cured? No, not in the least bit, but it's a START for trying to match up what's been said about it and what it actually can do. And yes, I've tested it on whatever I can find.

:facepalm:

Though I'm not sure of the exact range of effectiveness because I don't have access to any labs ;P.

Not access to a lab or a brain. But it is a great thing to admit point 4 that you don't know if it works.
But that automatically means that YOU CAN NOT HAVE MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, and yet you did:

What this implies, is that we can cure ourselves of whichever illnesses caused by infectious microbes.

The added oxygen increases the effectiveness and I'm looking into bubbling ozone into the batch instead of just air

What?
This is a jar containing air

This is a jar containing ozone

Can you tell the difference between the 2 just by looking at it?

 

[Marcus]

What?
This is a jar containing air

This is a jar containing ozone

Can you tell the difference between the 2 just by looking at it?

I can, and you've labelled them the wrong way round.

 

[scalyblue]

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:What?
This is a jar containing air
(jar)
This is a jar containing ozone
(jar)
Can you tell the difference between the 2 just by looking at it?

You're a fool, they obviously contain nitrogen and hydrogen

 

[ExeFBM]

Why would you want to add ozone to it? It irritates the respiratory system, turns cholesterol into plaque in your blood stream, and produces free radicals, which generally screw up biological systems. It also breaks down into molecular oxygen really easily.

 

[Niocan]

I can't really be bothered to waste my time debunking your pseudo BS. But that's exactly what it is.

The fact remains that you've failed to outline any reasonable scientific hypothesis that hasn't already been evaluated and dismissed, have failed to follow a controlled scientific method, and have failed to take on board or discuss with any depth many of the comments given in reply to your posts on this thread. You say on one hand you've done your homework, and yet on the other..."I believe stainless steel is recommended, but I've not tinkered with it yet.."

I'm not trying nor did I want to get into endless regressions of he says she says, which is why I outlined the purposed experiment. Nice quote mining though, because I clearly said:

Well I said before to keep this thread about CS and not the Pulser, but if you insist:
The circuit is attached to two small electrodes (Stainless steel is recommended I believe, but I'm not sure because I haven't tinkered with it *[The pulser] just yet =p)

Which means, I know more about the CS setup then I do the pulser at the moment... And you used that to try and falsify my apparent understanding about CS; Sounds like a creationist tactic, and I know you don't like it as much as I do when it's used against you/me.
I also find it funny that the common substance used in treatments of water and the like are silver and oxygen/ozone, and although the amounts and methods differ these two are at the base of it all. This implies that my base statement has some validity, and if we can prove in small tests its claims then we have a proof of concept about CS made this way.

there's very little conclusive scientific evidence out there to support the use of colloidal silver in the manner you describe, and you neglect the fact that not only can a bacterial resistance to silver be built, as well as the effects it could have on things like immunological memory. Lest we forget that marketing colloidal silver in the manner you describe would see you getting pretty much hauled through the courts if you were to pedal it for commercial gain in some countries, and rightly so.

Silver resistance is rarer then normal antibiotic resistance, and I'm sure just as silver can kill strains that have developed resistance to normal antibiotics there's substances that can kill silver resistant strains. I'll look into the immunological memory aspects later, they seem interesting and I'm curious to see how CS does affect it. Also note, I've never once marketed CS; Quite the opposite, I've said to make it yourself if you so wish as its the cheapest method.

I've seen those articles before, and if you've noticed I'm not trying to peddle, sell, or make claims about anything. I've outlined the statement and the experiment in the first post, and have stressed to test it yourself if you seem inclined. Use it for what you can prove to yourself to be true, that is my baseline statement.

But then I'm sure you'll come back with some pseudo-intellectual response blithering about how you've done your homework and that I'm ignorant and don't know what I'm talking about. But then, I'm not the one trying to convince people.

I'm trying to convince people it's worth checking into, and came to what I thought was a forum full of reasonable people that can apply, without bias, reason to help clear away what is BS and what isn't.

Normally I wouldn't bother replying to someone so misinformed, as it's up there with the fruit loop creationists in terms of how fast it enters one ear and leaves the other, but the fact you're encouraging people to do something which could potentially harm them, presenting it as fact when it's quite the opposite, and the fact you're attempting to pass off a fundamentally flawed method as conclusive is beyond just being a bit thin up top - it's dangerous, and perpetuates this retarded obsession with alternative medicines like homeopathy, which frankly does nothing other than hinder real medicinal research and development. Seriously, give it up - you might not turn blue, but you might end up being diagnosed with a case of terminal stupidity, it's not too late to save yourself, but you're walking a damn fine line.

There's a plethora of misinformation, as you said, about CS and I'm here to encourage people to TEST IT ON WHATEVER THEY DESIRE. It doesn't mean to go wild with it and to spew out claims like most do. There's nothing harmful about this amount of silver made in this way when its taken with common sense, and that's something I'm starting to question whether the people on this forum have it or not..

If you truly believe it's something special, get it peer reviewed and published, then I'll start taking you seriously. For now, I see it as being as effective as using house bricks in homeopathy.

It seems first hand experiences are demonized these days, and no one wants to question the side they stand on.

I'm afraid that's not the way to go about convincing people. Saying "the evidence is out there" is not evidence. *You* came to us, *you* want to convince us, *you* must provide evidence.

I gave you the evidence and you dismissed it because you can't copy and paste the title of the journal, date, and author into google so you *can* find whichever original article you want more info on. This says nothing of what I can bring and everything of what you apparently don't want to do.

This bite alone explains everything.
So we have established point 1. You never actually go through on actually thinking about the subject.

That sentence was saturated with sarcasm. I'm sorry it doesn't carry well over the internet?

So we establish point number 2, even you think that the amount of surface of the moon facing the earth that is also exposed to sun is silly.

I'm not sure as to why it would affect the CS (Perhaps more specifically the conductivity of silver, as it seems to stream off without building up as much silver oxide on the cathode), but it does; Which I thought was silly at first, seeing as how time isn't supposed to be a factor in this way.

Then you assert that it was known to have this effect, I will not ask you to back it up, but listen to this. "Astrology has been known to have the ability to predict the future".

I offer you this example: There's a thread of truth in everything, and reason shall pave the way though the BS. It just so happens that in this day and age people are devoid of enough reason to understand when their weapons are inadequate to the situation, and need to be upgraded.

I'm still missing to see any document that demonstrates the actual effectiveness of "colloidal silver" has an anti-septic without poisoning the host. If you say you have done the experiment, then there shouldn't be a problem for you to make such document, or is there?

The typical dose is about half a cup, which is 25mcg worth of silver in a 20 ppm batch. 5 times the daily intake, but it's spot treatment levels and not preventative care. More can be taken, but the amounts of silver needed to start poisoning is in excess of 1-5g depending on the personal level of metallic tolerance your body can handle. The effective dose in relation to toxic dose is huge so there's plenty of leeway.
As I said before, and it's clearly viable, what I can prove has little meaning in your eyes; So prove it with your own if you wish.

Point 3, even you admit that the said guy is an idiot. As for the claim that you have done it cheaper "for people like me", I advise you to take a look at the very first post on this topic (it is yours isn't it?) and tell me what device did you said to build? So what does that make you? (Yeap an idiot)

I said no such thing about Robert C. Beck [full name], and I use his exact layout so it isn't cheaper or different. I claim no superiority with exception that the details I mentioned are, to the best of my understanding, the best way to effectively make it. But really these details are basic to any chemist; All are ways to increase conductivity.

This is quite impressive I might add for someone who doesn't even know how to operate an oscilloscope.

Of course! They must be wrong as well if they have any relation to CS. /SARCASM
Besides, I only and explicitly said that it's mearly a rough demo for the wave generated by the device.

Give me the example of 1 single peer-reviewed document that states that colloidal silver is capable of killing any microbe without poisoning the host. The last part is important, because I can extremely easy make the case that fire kills almost any microbe and yet we do not set people on fire to cure them.

Well the poisoning is easy, seeing as how I've established that the silver levels are far below any toxicity. Aside from that though, I can't. I can only say what I've seen first hand, and even that means little to you until you test it yourself.
Perhaps if you searched for "Silver antimicrobial" in your favorite journal index you might find the details you wish.

It wouldn't just be over shooting, it would be extremely silly to argue with the statement that colloidal silver prevents respiration and that because of it could get you rid of organisms deprived of metabolism to begin with much less respiration cycle for that matter.

There's the theory that it's able to disable the lung of microbes, and also that it (Being an oxygen catalyst) oxidizes them on contact/makes them more prone. Perhaps it's a combination, I'm not entirely sure at this point but I'd love to find out.

Care to back it up, with let's say a scientific experimental report!.

Follow my experiment, repeat my test. Otherwise, stop asking.

Does it only make sense if silver attacks microbes? Are you sure you want to stand behind this?
And how does one come up with the theory that oxy-gen-enzyme being disabled when they have already admitted that they don't know what it is doing or if it has done anything in the first place? Here is a fun fact, did you know that many microbes don't even use oxygen in their metabolism?

I'm more partial to the oxidation (Where silver is the catalyst that binds to the microbe) death then respiratory death, but yes I stand by it.

Not access to a lab or a brain. But it is a great thing to admit point 4 that you don't know if it works.

I don't know of its range of effectiveness on the plethora of microbes out today; I've heard the 650 figure being passed around but I don't have any lab to test it. This is a humble way to look at it, and I don't want to make claims I can't backup myself.

*Sigh* I figure ozone (O3) might have a better and easier time making the Ag4O4 molecule then simple air.

Why would you want to add ozone to it? It irritates the respiratory system, turns cholesterol into plaque in your blood stream, and produces free radicals, which generally screw up biological systems. It also breaks down into molecular oxygen really easily.

The ozone would be added after the batch is made, with the water cooled down enough so the ozone can saturate it. Free ozone is very damaging, but it is slightly water soluble at cold temperates enough for about 20min before it's gone. In that time I want it to make the Ag4O4 molecule ;P

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You just don't get it do you?
You made a post trying to convince us, if you are trying to convince us we already establish that you have nothing to offer, unless you can come up with a experiment report and then we can talk on that. But unfortunately you have later admitted that you have done the experiment yourself and so you cannot compose such a document. You could have alternatively cited a source of a successful peer-reviewed article that supports what you claim, but you don't have that either.

If as you say you are not trying to convince us but simply trying to win a consensus then this (as already explained) is not the way to do it, to win a consensus you have to actually do the work, now what are you doing, report it and submit it for peer-review. YOU DO NOT go to random forums trying to convince people.

Either way there is no justification to have post this topic the way it was presented, your request not to be "over-rationalized" and go easy on you is a Freudian admission that you got nothing to present that could withstand the minor scrutiny.
And you want us to take your word for it? For what?
"Oh of course not, I have an experiment that you could do it to check it out" (you would say)
But let's not forget of course the original gear require to do so which you later admit it not to even be necessary, and the said experiment is not an experiment but rather a process to produce the so called Colloidal Silver which stresses that you can produce the substance but it's success or failure doesn't even address the original claim that Colloidal Silver is a good anti-septic. Adding the fact that we have better things to do with our money then to go after every single crazy experiment someone asks to check it out to prove whatever pseudo-science they are trying to advertise. And let's not forget that you have admitted yourself not knowing what were you doing much less be able to tell us with any degree of certainty what is really happening, and that asking someone else with no education in medicine to do experiment to agree with you about the claims about the medicinal value of such product is silly, even because that strange person doesn't know what he is doing much less establish with any degree of certainty what is actually happen, plus neither of you could establish the safety of the product (and claiming that small quantities don't hurt doesn't cut it, because you don't know that, secondly we have several examples that tells you it is wrong including lead poisoning).

And if you are one of those guys that know damn well that what they are saying is bullshit, then you could stop posting because you are not going to convince anyone. If you are genuinely self deceived, I urge you to get a scientific education.
What I do not want to hear from you is more of your week excuses, and advice you not to post anything if that is the only thing you can come up with.
As far as I'm concerned this topic is over.

 

[ExeFBM]

Why would you want to add ozone to it? It irritates the respiratory system, turns cholesterol into plaque in your blood stream, and produces free radicals, which generally screw up biological systems. It also breaks down into molecular oxygen really easily.

The ozone would be added after the batch is made, with the water cooled down enough so the ozone can saturate it. Free ozone is very damaging, but it is slightly water soluble at cold temperates enough for about 20min before it's gone. In that time I want it to make the Ag4O4 molecule ;P

What catalyst would you use for the reaction? All of your silver ions will be in the +1 oxidation state, and you'll need an equal mix of +1 and +3 silver ions to form your silver oxide. How would you then remove the catalyst from your solution, and how could you be sure that the unreacted ozone has been removed from the system before you drink it? The catalyst you'll be using could also be negatively affected by any radical reactions that are bound to crop up. What do you believe the effects of Ag4O4 to be, and what reasons do you have for believing this?

 

[scalyblue]

I...I can only say that the stupid is intoxicating...and it draws me back, like the DEMON that possesses the Prisoner, and yes I've been reading too much King.

The machine outlined in those schematics doesn't do anything that 3 or 4 9v batteries in a series would do. By the schematics, it doesn't even do *anything*

Since the machine doesn't do anything, any effects that you have experienced as a result of it are a placebo.

Even if it did something, it's probably electrolysis from one electrode to the other, essentially plating silver with silver, but that can't even happen in distilled water because distilled water IS AN INSULATOR.

Even if it weren't electrolysis, and you somehow managed to make ionic, or even colloidal metallic silver, whatever amount of silver you *are* getting isn't any more clinically significant than the bleach found in ordinary tapwater; 2 or 3 ppm solutions of compounds are almost homeopatic in nature, and we all know that homeopathy has no clinical proofs.

Even if the amount of silver you were getting was clinically significant, metallic silver is biologically inert, ionic silver is toxic and likes binding to various biological mechanisms, like the melanin glands in your skin.

Ionic silver *IS* an antiseptic. It's a rather good one in-vitro, the only thing that ionic silver does in-vivo is bond to the melanin producing glands and cause you to potentially expose yourself like a piece of untreated film in the sun. There is nothing you can consume alongside the ionic silver to offset this effect that wouldn't also offset the antiseptic effect of the ionic silver. The very mechanism that causes it to be antiseptic is the same mechanism that causes you to turn farkin blue, you cannot have one without the other.

Ingesting it doesn't have any beneficial effect, at all. There have been studies, and those studies have proved that there is no beneficial effect, at all. Most of the output from these colloidal silver generators doesn't even kill bacterial culture in a petri dish, and even if it did it would do nothing in-vivio

If I had ionic silver in solution, the healthiest thing I could probably do is water my houseplants with it because healthy houseplants are more clinically beneficial than colloidal silver.

Now on to your proofs.

No.

A scientist does not care about eyewitness information, because eyewitness information is the worst sort of data that can be acquired. A scientist especially doesn't care about *your* eyewitness information, because you are biased.

You posit that Collodial silver's antiseptic properties have health benefits. You want to be taken seriously, do the following.

Have your sample tested to see if it actually contains colloidal silver. Save and certify results for publishing
Get some petris , get some agar, grow some cultures, and show me that one drop of the silver solution ( if it is a silver solution ) is more effective on, let's say a culture of fecal coliform from your gums, than an equal amount of penicillin, or methacillin, or vancomycin. (you can't)

Repeat this about a dozen times in a humidity-stable, temperature-stable controlled environment. Document which cultures are statistically affected moreso by the silver than the antibiotics ( none )

Given that the results indicate that silver is superior as an antiseptic to antibiotics (it isn't) then go ahead and start experimenting in-vivio, on something like rats. Get the rats sick, give some antibiotics, some an inert substance (not the stuff you're making ^.^ something else that's inert) and then the silver. See which ones don't recover. Increase the dosages, see which ones don't recover...

repeat this a few dozen times, if not more.

See all of that data you have gathered? Publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. When it begins, you will hear the sound of children screaming,as though from a great distance. A smoking orb of nothing will grow above your bed, and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows. As Louis Pasteur slips through the widening maw in his new, zombie form, you will catch only a glimpse of his radiance before you are incinerated. Then, as tears of bubbling pitch stream down his face, his dark work will begin.

Your research will be invalidated

If that doesn't happen, Then come back here and have cake with us as we worship our new colloidal silver overlords.

Until then, I'll see you on the next lineup of intel commercials.

I'm done for real...back to reading some King...I would much prefer entertainment that has an end.

 

[borrofburi]

google so you *can* find whichever original article

I'm afraid that's not the way to go about convincing people. Saying "the evidence is out there" is not evidence. *You* came to us, *you* want to convince us, *you* must provide evidence.

Or even further, you do not say "google to find the evidence", because that is not providing evidence. *You* are to provide evidence, saying "ask google" is not providing evidence.

 

[AndroidAR]

As a university student, I am fortunate to have access to some medical journals, among other things.

I used the website ScienceDirect.com, which, like PubMed, has journals available for online browsing.
I searched the following terms:
- colloidal silver
(most results were not related to toxicity or consumption for medical purposes)
- silver antimicrobial
- silver toxicity human
- argyria
(there were many, MANY results pertaining to studies of humans suffering from argyria after either habitually using consuming colloidal silver, or using it as a wound dressing)

I have pulled 2 articles for use: (unfortunately, it seems that others have trouble seeing the articles via links, so I will post the full name, etc)

"Silver nanoparticles as a new generation of antimicrobials"
Mahendra Rai, Alka Yadav and Aniket Gade
Biotechnology Advances,
Volume 27, Issue 1, January-February 2009, Pages 76-83

Excerpt from Section 9.4 ("Silver toxicity") of the article

Hussain et al. (2005) studied the toxicity of different sizes of silver nanoparticles on rat liver cell line (BRL 3A) (ATCC, CRL-1442 immortalized rat liver cells). The authors found that after an exposure of 24 h the mitochondrial cells displayed abnormal size, cellular shrinkage and irregular shape. Cytotoxicity study of silver nanoparticle impregnated five commercially available dressings was undertaken by Burd et al. (2007). In the study, it was found that three of the silver dressings depicted cytotoxicity effects in keratinocytes and fibroblast cultures. Braydich-Stolle et al. (2005) reported the toxicity of silver nanoparticles on C18-4 cell, a cell line with spermatogonial stem cell characteristics. From the study, it was concluded that the cytotoxicity of silver nanoparticles to the mitochondrial activity increased with the increase in the concentration of silver nanoparticles.

Excerpt from Conclusion:

Thus, it can be concluded that metallic silver has been in use since ancient times. However, with the advent of silver nanoparticles and its major use as an antimicrobial agent, much experimental trials are needed to understand the toxicity. There are some questions, which need to be addressed, such as, the exact mechanism of interaction of silver nanoparticles with the bacterial cells, how the surface area of nanoparticles influence its killing activity, use of animal models and clinical studies to get a better understanding of the antimicrobial efficiency of silver dressings, the toxicity if any of the silver dressings, etc.

NOTE: It seems that they are acknowledging the toxicity in the reddened portion of that last statement and the following lines.

---------------------------------------------

"Oxidative stress-dependent toxicity of silver nanoparticles in human hepatoma cells"
Soohee Kim, Ji Eun Choi, Jinhee Choi, Kyu-Hyuck Chung, Kwangsik Park, Jongheop Yi and Doug-Young Ryu
Toxicology in Vitro,
Volume 23, Issue 6, September 2009, Pages 1076-1084

NOTE: This article was published this month (September 2009), so this is about as up to date as you can get.

The article's Abstract (in entirety):

Cytotoxicity induced by silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and the role that oxidative stress plays in this process were demonstrated in human hepatoma cells. Toxicity induced by silver (Ag+) ions was studied in parallel using AgNO3 as the Ag+ ion source. Using cation exchange treatment, we confirmed that the AgNP solution contained a negligible amount of free Ag+ ions. Metal-responsive metallothionein 1b (MT1b) mRNA expression was not induced in AgNP-treated cells, while it was induced in AgNO3-treated cells. These results indicate that AgNP-treated cells have limited exposure to Ag+ ions, despite the potential release of Ag+ ions from AgNPs in cell culture. AgNPs agglomerated in the cytoplasm and nuclei of treated cells, and induced intracellular oxidative stress. AgNPs exhibited cytotoxicity with a potency comparable to that of Ag+ ions in in vitro cytotoxicity assays. However, the toxicity of AgNPs was prevented by use of the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine, and AgNP-induced DNA damage was also prevented by N-acetylcysteine. AgNO3 treatment induced oxidative stress-related glutathione peroxidase 1 (GPx1) and catalase expression to a greater extent than AgNP exposure, but treatment with AgNO3 and AgNPs induced comparable superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) expression levels. Our findings suggest that AgNP cytotoxicity is primarily the result of oxidative stress and is independent of the toxicity of Ag+ ions.

Section 3.6. "DNA damage induced by AgNPs"

The detection of γ-H2AX phosphorylation, which is indicative of DNA double-strand breaks, was performed by immunofluorescene assay after treatment of HepG2 cells with 1 and 2 μg/ml concentrations of AgNPs for 24 h. Among various types of DNA damage, double-strand breaks are considered to be the most biologically significant lesions in cells (Rothkamm and Lobrich, 2003). AgNPs induced γ-H2AX phosphorylation in HepG2 cells in a dose-dependent manner, indicating AgNP-induced DNA damage (Fig. 8A and C). However, this induction of DNA damage by AgNP was prevented by pretreatment of the cells with 10 mM NAC (Fig. 8B and D), suggesting that AgNPs induced oxidative damage to DNA. AgNO3 also caused DNA damage in HepG2 cells (Fig. 8E) that was decreased by NAC pretreatment (Fig. 8F).

Excerpts from Section 4 "Discussion"

Surface reactivity, chemical composition, and large specific surface area have been deemed important properties in NP-mediated toxicity (Wallace et al., 2007). Due to their physicochemical properties, it is likely that AgNPs have unique mechanisms of toxic actions. However, distinguishing the toxic effect of AgNPs from that of Ag+ ions has been hampered by the presence of Ag+ ions released from AgNPs. The AgNP solution used in this study was shown to be deficient of free Ag+ ions at the time of cell treatment based upon ion exchange treatment (Fig. 1). However, it cannot be excluded that AgNPs released Ag+ ions in culture media and intracellularly. It has been suggested that NPs act as Trojan horse-type carriers that enable the transport of metal ions into cells (Limbach et al., 2007).

Toxicity of AgNPs was compared to that of various corresponding concentrations of Ag+ ions (Fig. 5). Based upon the IC50 values determined by three cytotoxicity assays, AgNPs and Ag+ ions did not exhibit a dramatic difference in cytotoxicity.

In summary, AgNPs exhibited cytotoxicity with a potency comparable to that of Ag+ ions in cytotoxicity assays, and the cytotoxicity of AgNPs, like that of Ag+ ions, was attributed primarily to oxidative stress. The expression of oxidative stress-related mRNA species was regulated differentially by AgNPs and Ag+ ions, and these findings suggest that AgNP-induced toxicity is an intrinsic effect of AgNPs that is independent of free Ag+ ions and the mechanisms of AgNP action may be different from those of Ag+ ions.

NOTE: What the article is essentially saying is that silver nanoparticles and silver ions have similar toxicity to cells.
==============================
ALSO, I found this article on PubMed:
Colloidal silver as an antimicrobial agent: fact or fiction?

OBJECTIVE: Colloidal silver preparations are marketed on the internet as omnipotent antimicrobial agents, but scientific support for these claims is lacking. This study reports the results of in vitro tests of colloidal silver's antimicrobial activity against several pathogenic or non-pathogenic microorganisms. METHOD: Three samples of colloidal silver were tested: one available commercially on the internet (silver concentration of 22 ppm) and two samples (concentrations of 403 and 413 ppm) which were prepared in our laboratory using standard chemical methods. RESULTS: In an agar-well diffusion assay none of the three colloidal silver solutions had any effect on the growth of the test organisms. All tested bacterial strains were sensitive to ciprofloxacin. Colloidal silver 22 ppm showed no bactericidal activity in phenol coefficient tests. CONCLUSION: As the tested colloidal silver solutions did not show any antimicrobial effect in vitro on the microorganisms, claims of colloidal silver's antimicrobial potency are misleading and there is no place for it as an antiseptic.

----------------------
I'll just leave those there.

 

[Niocan]

First off, Thank you ExeFBM and AndroidAR
It looks like there's a very distinct connection to oxidation as its primary means of attack, and it doesn't surprise me to hear cases of argyria seeing as how a great deal of people nowadays are... well, reasonless. This might be myself included so we'll see But for now I'd love to distill and ferment this information for a bit (Metaphorically speaking of course). The nano-particle / heavy metal connection is interesting, and at first appearance it seems CS is more of a catalyst for health then a direct treatment... Huzzah information ^.^
I'm sure there's a window of safety, the trick is to find it...

 

[darthrender2010]

I'm sure there's a window of safety, the trick is to find it...

lol aaaaaaaaaaaaaand





*facepalm*

 

[borrofburi]

I'm sure there's a window of safety, the trick is to find it...

The point of the studies is that colloidal silver is more poisonous than it is good. Any point of safety is so diluted it will have no effect. Any point where it will have some form of effect it will no longer be safe. To compare to the very strong anti-microbial, bleach, we don't use bleach on ourselves because any concentration where it is safe it won't effectively kill bad things in us, and any level of bleach that will effectively kill bad things in us is not safe for us.

 

[Niocan]

There's a few major points I'd like to expand on for a bit:
The cytotoxicity of Ag; Susceptibility of Argyria; And Actual reports of Argyria...

For the cytotoxicity, does it say in the article the levels of silver they used? According to Cellular responses induced by silver nanoparticles: In vitro studies:

A systematic study on the in vitro interactions of 7-20 nm spherical silver nanoparticles (SNP) with HT-1080 and A431 cells was undertaken as a part of an on-going program in our laboratory to develop a topical antimicrobial agent for the treatment of burn wound infections.

Upon exposure to SNP (up to 6.25 μg/mL), morphology of both the cell types remained unaltered. However, at higher concentrations (6.25-50 μg/mL) cells became less polyhedral, more fusiform, shrunken and rounded. IC50 values for HT-1080 and A431 as revealed by XTT assay were 10.6 and 11.6 μg/mL, respectively. When the cells were challenged with 1/2 IC50 concentration of SNP (6.25 μg/mL), clear signs of oxidative stress, i.e. decreased GSH (2.5-folds in HT-1080, 2-folds in A431) and SOD (1.6-folds in HT-1080, 3-folds in A431) as well as increased lipid peroxidation (2.5-folds in HT-1080, 2-folds in A431) were seen. Changes in the levels of catalase and GPx in A431 cells were statistically insignificant in both cell types. DNA fragmentation in SNP-exposed cells suggested apoptosis. When the apoptotic thresholds of SNP were monitored with caspase-3 assay the concentrations required for the onset of apoptosis were found to be much lower (0.78 μg/mL in HT-1080, 1.56 μg/mL in A431) than the necrotic concentration (12.5 μg/mL in both cell types). These results can be used to define a safe range of SNP for the intended application as a topical antimicrobial agent after appropriate in vivo studies.

For reference, the amount of silver in the "1L 20ppm" batch would be 2ug/ml. At these levels would it not be safe to assume there's far more damage done to the microbes then to the cells? Let's not forget that the concentration will decrease as it spreads through the blood... Silver is acting as the catalyst for oxygen, too much is always bad but we can add just enough to level the playing field (so to speak).

Secondly, the Susceptibility of Argyria... I've seen time and time again the mention of "silver salts" and "silver proteins" when I've looked through the indexes of pubmed and sciencedirect; This isn't colloidal silver, they're silver compounds, and I can't seem to find any reports about colloidal silver specifically.
The connection between Colloidal silver (The same 1L 20ppm batch made with low voltage electrolysis) and argyria is... false?

Which brings me to the third point:

(...)(there were many, MANY results pertaining to studies of humans suffering from argyria after either habitually using consuming colloidal silver, or using it as a wound dressing)

Is the "432 articles found for: ALL(argyria)" referring to the many results you found, or was that searched for elsewhere?
I mainly ask because there's hardly any reports (Past the first half of the page) in those search results that even mention ingested silver..

What catalyst would you use for the reaction? All of your silver ions will be in the +1 oxidation state, and you'll need an equal mix of +1 and +3 silver ions to form your silver oxide. How would you then remove the catalyst from your solution, and how could you be sure that the unreacted ozone has been removed from the system before you drink it? The catalyst you'll be using could also be negatively affected by any radical reactions that are bound to crop up. What do you believe the effects of Ag4O4 to be, and what reasons do you have for believing this?

I'd like to avoid any outside catalyst at all costs, so adding one isn't an option. I've seen some trace reports of how silver oxide and the Ag4O4 version might be better, and was hoping I could induce the reaction by just bubbling the ozone through >.>. The +3 silver ion threw me off, and it seems now it's just in vein lol.

I'd love to hear your reaction ExeFBM, and if at all possible perhaps some input or tips to make this reaction (Erm, the electrolysis method of depositing the silver ions into the water) better?

 

[ExeFBM]

I'd like to avoid any outside catalyst at all costs, so adding one isn't an option. I've seen some trace reports of how silver oxide and the Ag4O4 version might be better, and was hoping I could induce the reaction by just bubbling the ozone through >.>. The +3 silver ion threw me off, and it seems now it's just in vein lol.

I'd love to hear your reaction ExeFBM, and if at all possible perhaps some input or tips to make this reaction (Erm, the electrolysis method of depositing the silver ions into the water) better?

With your current set up, you might produce some Ag4O4, but also Ag2O2, Ag2O, and a few other silver oxides. Some of which are used in batteries. If I was trying to form Ag4O4, I'd want to use some organic solvents, nitric acid (very nasty stuff), and something like sodium persulfate to oxidise the reaction. All of these things would put you in serious danger if you drank them. I don't believe you can get a selective reaction for Ag4O4 with your current setup, and all of the other methods I can think of would involve the addition of harmful substances, that would rule out drinking it.

 

[Josan]

Hello I'm here to prove to you that over-rationalization is just as bad as the dogmatic faith found in the tainted religions we have today. How? By letting you prove yourself wrong.

Err... okey, go ahead.

Oh wait, you don't do that at all do you? You do something completely else...

[Yada, yada, yada. Colloidal Silver claims, etc.]

Colloidal Silver has no scientific evidence as a medicine at all. Have a nice day.

Oh wait! I forgot, you want US to test it, on ourselves! Wow! What a fantastic idea. Screw actual scientists and researchers, they have no clue what they're doing. I can do a much better job in my basement by using chemicals that on other occasions have hurt people severly! Great idea!

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Niocan, put this trough your head, you are not educated in medicine, you don't know what you are doing, and it wont be a poorly set experiment based upon subjective criteria that is going to make the difference.

Let me tell you a story that happens quite often in engineering when some crackpot wanabe that doesn't have the slightest clue of what he is doing tries to be a smart guy and tries to do engineering application despite not having the slightest clue on what he is doing.
I stress that this story is genuine, it did really happened, and very often.
It is usual for people to claim that they have a device that outputs more energy then it inputs and it can run undefinitively.
The principle they claim to violate is the conservation of energy. Some of them are electric devices, a certain person plugs them to the common house current, to calculate electrical power you can use the formula P=iv (i.e. current times difference of potential).
So the device is set with a voltimeter (measures difference of potential) and an amperimeter (measures current) in the input (you calculate the power input by multiplying both of the values together manually), and you set another voltimeter and another amperimeter on the output (you calculate the power output by multiplying both of the values together manually). Once they flick the device on, voilà¡, all values are steadily set and what do you know? The calculated power output is bigger than the power input and the devices runs as long as it is plugged to the house hold current.

I will explain what happened here later, but with the information you have now, Do you think that the experiment was successful? Does the device really outputs more energy than it inputs? If not what went wrong? Did you think the guy had any legitimacy to claim what he does with that experiment?

 

[Niocan]

With your current set up, you might produce some Ag4O4, but also Ag2O2, Ag2O, and a few other silver oxides. Some of which are used in batteries. If I was trying to form Ag4O4, I'd want to use some organic solvents, nitric acid (very nasty stuff), and something like sodium persulfate to oxidise the reaction. All of these things would put you in serious danger if you drank them. I don't believe you can get a selective reaction for Ag4O4 with your current setup, and all of the other methods I can think of would involve the addition of harmful substances, that would rule out drinking it.

Hmm, alright well then it seems instead of using the air and movement to reduce agglomeration the best tactic would be to limit the current even further.. I've been looking at what other pre-made units have for currents and it's all around .5 to 1mA; Whereas mine is about 20mA right now >.>

So if we were to get a constant current going and perhaps some movement with a magnetic stirrer (The container can be sealed then), am I correct in thinking that the silver won't be oxidized? Or will it just pry it off the water..
With what you said in mind, I'd like to avoid anything but basic silver ions floating in water.

Colloidal Silver has no scientific evidence as a medicine at all. Have a nice day.

Oh wait! I forgot, you want US to test it, on ourselves! Wow! What a fantastic idea. Screw actual scientists and researchers, they have no clue what they're doing. I can do a much better job in my basement by using chemicals that on other occasions have hurt people severly! Great idea!

You don't need to test it on yourselves, and I'm only looking into this because there seems to be a black hole around human clinical trials with CS. These won't hurt anyone, as we've established that oxidative damage was the culprit and the levels we have/use would be far under the tolerance of most cells... if they didn't, we'd be dead by now from the air we breath
The silver would act as a catalyst to: Induce oxidative damage to simple microbes, and as the silver attaches itself to the outer layer any H2O2 used on it by your immune system would be greatly enhanced by said silver. It's carried around by the body as a trace mineral, and excreted just the same. Please look into what's been said here instead of jumping in.


I'm still waiting to see if the reported "many, MANY" cases of argyria are indeed true..

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Do not avoid my question Niocam, try to answer it, there is a very good point in it.

 

[Niocan]

Do not avoid my question Niocam, try to answer it, there is a very good point in it.

*Sigh* Alright, his proof of concept was correct and the result was achieved but we must question the efficiency and what loads it can handle.. If you're saying that we have todays antibiotics to treat the ill and they're supposed to be 'better'; I ask why there isn't another broad spectrum antimicrobial substance that can do the same work as CS. Let's not forget, we can make this at home for very cheap amounts.

Nor should we forget about what damage they do to our kidneys and livers, or any other fracked up side effect that allopathic medicine can spit out.

This is a chance to empower yourself; Of which has been demonized in this society because people are afraid of each other...