Colloidal Silver

[DonOne]

Being of average intelligence, I do sometimes struggle with alot of the information that is posted here:(
I was prompted into doing a search on silver after watching an advert for plasters (band aid's) that contained silver. The search lead me HERE (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altwary.html)
This site really explained alot for me, in terms that i could understand.
Now the point of this ramble. I also found THIS (http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/rose1.html)
How is this allowed to happen?
Like I said average intelligence and all that.
I will get me coat :(:con2:

[clarsct]

Oh my...what a goldmine..erm silvermine of Woo you've found here.

I googled around and ran into this site:
http://www.silver-colloids.com/Reports/reports.html

Hmmmm. It uses some facts along with a little "technobabble" to lead someone to believe that this silver stuff is ok, as long as you have the right stuff. You might've noticed that this site in run by a company that sells this garbage.

However, had you gone a bit farther on Quackwatch, you might've found this:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html

Which is written by a Medical Doctor. If you want silver, buy a ring for your lady(or lord..whatever melts your butter). I guarantee you'll get better results from that in your health than by swallowing it.

[richardm]

So, what's the deal with these new Elastoplast Silver (http://www.elastoplast.ca/index.php?p=63&lang=2) things?

Is it pure quackery? It certainly sounds indistinguishable from many woo claims:


Elastoplast SILVERHEALING's unique silver wound pad contains silver ions that are released during the healing process to:

Kill over 150 different bacteria, fungi, yeast and harmful germs [kills bacteria and germs? Either one would be great, but both!]
Reduce the risk of inflammation and and infection
Enhance wound healing


It goes on:


Silver is a natural antimicrobial ingredient that has been used for years by professionals in the field of wound healing, mainly because of its scientifically proven antimicrobial efficacy. Elastoplast® has now made the benefits of silver available for daily use at home.

The prophylactic application of silver, a non-toxic, effective antimicrobial agent, is useful for the treatment of acute wounds – especially when the risk of infection exists or is suspected. The active ingredient prevents the growth of a broad spectrum of bacteria and fungi. At the same time, silver is a very skin-friendly and highly compatible agent to which – unlike many antibiotics – bacteria rarely build up resistance.


Any truth to any of this, or is it marketing gone mad? And if iit is marketing, why hasn't the ASA had something to say about it?

[Darat]

Are they saying the silver actively stops infections developing in the wound or that it ensures the plaster is sterile before it is applied?

[Rob Lister]

Here's a pic of Stan Jones

http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/quackery/argyria/stanjones.jpg
Stan Jones, Montana Libertarian Party candidate

[Darat]

Hi Stan - I'm really trying to understand why you are here?

[DonOne]

richardm, thats the advert that promted my search.

Does all that drivel mean the plasters will stay on the children longer than 10 minutes?







Do not use SILVERHEALINGâ„¢ in case of silver allergy or argyria.











I think I might just keep using the regular plasters for the children.;)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Darat
Hi Stan - I'm really trying to understand why you are here?

There's a reason Stan looks the way he does. In 1999 he feared the Y2K crisis would result in a world-wide shortage of antibiotics so he decided to self-administer Colloidal Silver.

Now he is permantly blue-gray for life.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
There's a reason Stan looks the way he does. In 1999 he feared the Y2K crisis would result in a world-wide shortage of antibiotics so he decided to self-administer Colloidal Silver.

Now he is permantly blue-gray for life.

You mean that is his colour and not just a bad photo?! :eek:

Edited to add:

Didn’t he just think of buying a few courses of antibiotics? That seems a more rational approach to a fear about shortages?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Darat
You mean that is his colour and not just a bad photo?! :eek:

Edited to add:

Didn’t he just think of buying a few courses of antibiotics? That seems a more rational approach to a fear about shortages?

That's his color from now on.

Plus, in the U.S., you can't 'just buy' antibiotics. They must be perscribed by a doctor. I'm sure that's another thing that pisses him off, him being a libertarian and all. :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
That's his color from now on.

Plus, in the U.S., you can't 'just buy' antibiotics. They must be perscribed by a doctor. I'm sure that's another thing that pisses him off, him being a libertarian and all. :)

I've just read how he went about making his own colloidal silver solution, quite literally kitchen sink chemistry; he had no idea of what strength his dosage was or anything. The man is a lunatic!

See: http://www.silveredgehealth.com/blueman.htm

(Edited to add.)

I'm sure he could have found a sympathetic Doctor that would have provided the prescription, I know many Doctors who will prescribe antibiotics for people going on expeditions and even just on holidays abroad.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Darat
I've just read how he went about making his own colloidal silver solution, quite literally kitchen sink chemistry; he had no idea of what strength his dosage was or anything. The man is a lunatic!

See: http://www.silveredgehealth.com/blueman.htm

(Edited to add.)

I'm sure he could have found a sympathetic Doctor that would have provided the prescription, I know many Doctors who will prescribe antibiotics for people going on expeditions and even just on holidays abroad.

He then stated that since he first started noticing the minor skin discoloration a year ago, he began studying colloidal silver usage more carefully, and has learned there are many variables to take into consideration when making colloidal silver.

This is the equivalent of 'shoot first, ask questions later'.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by DonOne
How is this allowed to happen?


It sickens me.

We've known the poisonous effects of silver for centuries. How can someone market a known poison as a helpful drug? How can someone believe such bunk when libraries are loaded with books on the health effects of silver?

It's stuff like this that takes another chunk out of my faith in humanity. :(

I've never heard of quackwatch. I've added it to my bookmarks. Thanks for the link, and welcome to the forum.

[clarsct]

Originally posted by Bruce
It sickens me.

We've known the poisonous effects of silver for centuries. How can someone market a known poison as a helpful drug? How can someone believe such bunk when libraries are loaded with books on the health effects of silver?

It's stuff like this that takes another chunk out of my faith in humanity. :(

I've never heard of quackwatch. I've added it to my bookmarks. Thanks for the link, and welcome to the forum.


>!<
Bruce...Quackwatch is like Snopes for the medical community. A MUST HAVE!! I'm surprised you haven't heard of it!!

You oughta see what's being said on the Homeopathy threads. As a chemist, I'm sure there's a lot there to pique your interest.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by clarsct
>!<
Bruce...Quackwatch is like Snopes for the medical community. A MUST HAVE!! I'm surprised you haven't heard of it!!

You oughta see what's being said on the Homeopathy threads. As a chemist, I'm sure there's a lot there to pique your interest.

I generally avoid the medical community. Bioscience is not my forte, and the corruption within and leeching from that field is enough to keep you up every night. I cite this thread as an example. :(

[Lisa Simpson]

This (http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/) is a very sad story of a woman who took silver and ended up with argyria.

I got a spam email recently telling me the wonders of colloidal silver and while reading about it on quackwatch, I came across this story.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Darat
I know many Doctors who will prescribe antibiotics for people going on expeditions and even just on holidays abroad. Grrr...Irresponsible.



Antibiotic resistance a growing threat, WHO reports



Improper drug use to blame

From staff reports

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sore throats and ear infections, ailments once easily treatable, may soon become immune to antibiotics, as malaria and tuberculosis have become in some countries, officials of the World Health Organization said Monday.

WHO's annual report on infectious diseases, "Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance," paints a comprehensive picture of the dwindling effect penicillin and other antibiotics have in fighting once simple bacterial infections.


People throughout the world "may only have a decade or two to make use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases," said Dr. David Heymann, executive director of WHO's program on communicable diseases.

Better strategies for drug treatment needed

WHO officials said poorly planned or haphazard use of medicines has caused drugs to lose effectiveness almost as quickly as scientists have been able to discover them.

Antimicrobial resistance is a naturally occurring biological phenomenon -- bugs develop resistance to drugs that don't kill them -- but the process is amplified by misuse and neglect of antimicrobial drugs. Antimicrobial resistance can reduce the power of once life-saving medicines to that of a sugar pill.

"We currently have effective medicines to cure almost every major infectious disease," said Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, WHO's director-general. "But we risk losing these valuable drugs and our opportunity to eventually control many infectious diseases because of increasing antimicrobial resistance."

ANTIBIOTICS


In the United States, the situation stems from overuse. Officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have estimated one-third of the 150 million prescriptions written for antibiotics each year are unnecessary, resulting in bacterial strains that become tougher than the antibiotics being used against them.

About 14,000 people are infected and die each year as a result of drug-resistant microbes picked up in U.S. hospitals, WHO reported. Globally, WHO said drug-resistant bacteria account for up to 60 percent of hospital-acquired infections.


The most effective strategy, the report concludes, is to "get the job done right the first time" by killing microbes before they can develop resistance.

To achieve that goal, doctors in poorer countries must encourage patients to finish their medications and doctors in wealthier countries must prescribe antibiotics only when necessary, said WHO officials.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by richardm
So, what's the deal with these new Elastoplast Silver (http://www.elastoplast.ca/index.php?p=63&lang=2) things?

Is it pure quackery? It certainly sounds indistinguishable from many woo claims:

I think this is likely to be useful real medicine.

e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15823649&query_hl=1

and has a long history. Flamazine has been famous for a long time as a topical product. The name derives from its use in burns patients.

http://www.dressings.org/Dressings/flamazine.html

Note in that abtract the mention of bacterial resistance to silver, which directly contradicts the woo claims highlighted in the Quackwatch review.

All sorts of odd sounding things are used in wound coverings. Alginate from seaweed is an example.

As ever, woos promote with grand claims and no brains, reputable companies make narrow claims backed by research.

The kinds of companies that have brought that topical silver product to the wound healing market have massively and beneficially changed the way wounds heal. In our grandparent's day wounds were dried and wound powders were frequently applied to dry them, with largely deleterious effects on healng rates. Now we try to keep wounds moist. The downside is that they require a lot more attention and care to ensure the wound environment stays healthy.

I do have a minor quibble about these human products being promoted to vets where the practicalities and biology is different. Our patients are hairy and dirtier than most human patients and that does alter the balance of risks and benefits with these products.

However, unregulated systemic dosing with a poisonous heavy metal is typical woo.

On the other hand, who knows, in some cleverly done, targeted way one could imagine silver being used as a systemic anti-microbial. Oh, I don't know, tag antibodies with it and send it into an infected site or something. But that is not the same as phoning Sigma Chemical and swallowing whatever comes in the mail, which is what those disreputable people and companies are effectively doing.

Thank you Barb for your irrelevant and off-topic post.

Edited to add:

At least I hope it was off-topic. I've suddenly realised that by posting on antibiotic resistance in a thread condemning systemic colloidal silver you may be intending the contrast you create to imply tacit support for systemic colloidal silver. Please confirm you were not doing that.

[Rolfe]

I think she was just taking the opportunity to put the boot into any doctor who would consider supplying antibiotics to a patient prophylactically. You know, she never "bashes allopaths", but it's just coincidental that she jumps in with both fists swinging whenever there's an opportunity to comment on anything that might possibly be represented as medical malpractice.

Although I can imagine circumstances where it would be reasonable to supply a responsible patient with antibiotics prior to travelling to a remote area in anticipation of a specific infection problem arising, I very much doubt that a request for antibiotics "just in case" the millennium bug wiped out civilisation would have met with much sympathy!

Rolfe.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I think she was just taking the opportunity to put the boot into any doctor who would consider supplying antibiotics to a patient prophylactically. You know, she never "bashes allopaths", but it's just coincidental that she jumps in with both fists swinging whenever there's an opportunity to comment on anything that might possibly be represented as medical malpractice.

Although I can imagine circumstances where it would be reasonable to supply a responsible patient with antibiotics prior to travelling to a remote area in anticipation of a specific infection problem arising, I very much doubt that a request for antibiotics "just in case" the millennium bug wiped out civilisation would have met with much sympathy!

Rolfe.

ah phoo. posting info from the WHO and CDC is hardly "jumping in with both fists swinging". Overuse of antibiotics is a real pet peeve of mine and to see Darat comment that he knows MANY doctors who will give antibiotics for someone just going on vacation and to recommend this practice for this poor fellow who obviously doesn't make good choices (making his own silver) warranted comment IMHO. If it is "derailing" a thread then just ignore it.

No BSM, I do not promote colloidial silver. I know the problems it can cause and anyone who thinks about taking it could easily find the side-effects and risks by doing a simple google search.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Barbrae
No BSM, I do not promote colloidial silver. I know the problems it can cause and anyone who thinks about taking it could easily find the side-effects and risks by doing a simple google search.

Good.

Now, back to the derail. I know we are all supposed to get in a sweat about 'over-prescription' of antibiotics. But if the figure is taht about 1/3 of prescriptions are inappropriate, I'm not sure that should lead us to conclude that over-prescription has much responsibility for antibiotic resistance. That still means that 2/3 of prescriptions are appropriate. Given the near-universal nature of the ability of bacteria to develop resistance I'd bet a fair sum of money that even if the 1/3 were instantly abolished we'd see resistance developing at pretty much the same rate.

In other words, I doubt that "overprescription" is to blame. I suspect that widespread prescription per se of antibiotics is to blame.

This is not my speciality, so I'd be interested in Rolfe's views, but it just seems obvious to me that placing bugs under selective pressure even in correctly chosen patients is still going to select for resistance simply because bacterial disease treatable by antibiotics is so prevalent.

Blaiming overperscription is an easy way to divert the blame to foolish doctors instead of accepting that the problem is locked into biology however well doctors behave. Sadly, this means the problem is more not less intractable.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Good.

Now, back to the derail. I know we are all supposed to get in a sweat about 'over-prescription' of antibiotics. But if the figure is taht about 1/3 of prescriptions are inappropriate, I'm not sure that should lead us to conclude that over-prescription has much responsibility for antibiotic resistance. That still means that 2/3 of prescriptions are appropriate. Given the near-universal nature of the ability of bacteria to develop resistance I'd bet a fair sum of money that even if the 1/3 were instantly abolished we'd see resistance developing at pretty much the same rate.

In other words, I doubt that "overprescription" is to blame. I suspect that widespread prescription per se of antibiotics is to blame.

This is not my speciality, so I'd be interested in Rolfe's views, but it just seems obvious to me that placing bugs under selective pressure even in correctly chosen patients is still going to select for resistance simply because bacterial disease treatable by antibiotics is so prevalent.

Blaiming overperscription is an easy way to divert the blame to foolish doctors instead of accepting that the problem is locked into biology however well doctors behave. Sadly, this means the problem is more not less intractable.

Some very fair reasoning, that.

Is it also fair to wonder that what the CDC might consider as an unnecessary antibiotic prescription might differ from what an in-the-weeds family doctor's thinks is unnecessary?

Case in point: Doctors that prescribe antibiotics for a common cold. No, it won't help the cold but it won't hurt it and and it might ward off opportunistic infections, especially in the very young and very old. Even though the infection risk is small, the 'added resistance' this prescription causes is even smaller and his malpractice insurance premiums are already very high indeed.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Some very fair reasoning, that.

Is it also fair to wonder that what the CDC might consider as an unnecessary antibiotic prescription might differ from what an in-the-weeds family doctor's thinks is unnecessary?

We have a big problem with Pseudomonas infections in dog ears. We treat it with antibiotics and no one can reasonably say this is not a bacterial disease but it's a bugger to shift and in a high percentage of cases we can't cure it and in the process that population acquires resistance to what we are using.

No one has come up with a mode of treatment that doesn't involve antibiotics and I do too many TECA/LBO (http://www.dermapet.com/articles/es_canine.html) procedures, but that's the only way to remiove the problem in end-stage cases. I hadn't done as many as we used to and was rather smugly thinking our medical management had got a lot better, but like buses they all seem to arrive at once and I've done multiple procedures in the last few weeks, though several have been second opinions cases not just our own cases. Which just goes to show that we can't win 'em all but we'd win even fewer without antibiotics.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
We have a big problem with Pseudomonas infections in dog ears. We treat it with antibiotics and no one can reasonably say this is not a bacterial disease but it's a bugger to shift and in a high percentage of cases we can't cure it and in the process that population acquires resistance to what we are using.

<snip>
Isn't pseudomonas a bacteria family? Or is that just the name of the disease?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Anders
Isn't pseudomonas a bacteria family? Or is that just the name of the disease?

Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Inhabitant of dirty drains and smelly dog ears.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Now, back to the derail. I know we are all supposed to get in a sweat about 'over-prescription' of antibiotics. But if the figure is taht about 1/3 of prescriptions are inappropriate, I'm not sure that should lead us to conclude that over-prescription has much responsibility for antibiotic resistance. That still means that 2/3 of prescriptions are appropriate. Given the near-universal nature of the ability of bacteria to develop resistance I'd bet a fair sum of money that even if the 1/3 were instantly abolished we'd see resistance developing at pretty much the same rate.Well, it seems reasonable to assume that it would drop by at least 33%. Furthermore, responsible antibiotics use probably leads to much less resistance than irresponsible use. If a patient is put on a strict antibiotics regime, the bacteria has to instantly develop resistance. In the case of haphazard antibiotics use, however, some of the bacteria survives, regardless of resistence. The more resistent ones, however, will survive at greater rates, and this allows for a gradual evolution of resistence over thousands of generations. In addition, proper antibiotics supervision will probably be accompanied by proper vector supervision, which means that steps will taken to ensure that the bacteria is not transmitted to another person, and that those that already have it (including the person that infected the current patient) will be treated.

AndersIsn't pseudomonas a bacteria family? I think that you missed the double negative: "no one can reasonably say this is not a bacterial disease".

[JSFolk]

Just to clarify a little about the doctors giving antibiotics to expedition members or folks going on vacation: These are probably not meant to be used prophylactically. I've done a lot of reading about long-distance sailing/cruising, and one of the things that you do before going out is to get your doctor to give prescriptions for a few good multi-spectrum antibiotics, along with instructions for their use. That way, when you get some sort of weird tropical disease while anchored off of an atoll in the South Pacific, you can do something about it. Antibiotics can also be used to control, say, appendicitis until you can get to a doctor.

I'm against over-use of antibiotics too, but let's not fly off the handle. ;)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Well, it seems reasonable to assume that it would drop by at least 33%. Furthermore, responsible antibiotics use probably leads to much less resistance than irresponsible use. If a patient is put on a strict antibiotics regime, the bacteria has to instantly develop resistance. In the case of haphazard antibiotics use, however, some of the bacteria survives, regardless of resistence. The more resistent ones, however, will survive at greater rates, and this allows for a gradual evolution of resistence over thousands of generations. In addition, proper antibiotics supervision will probably be accompanied by proper vector supervision, which means that steps will taken to ensure that the bacteria is not transmitted to another person, and that those that already have it (including the person that infected the current patient) will be treated.

I'm a novice here so don't dis' me unless you're in a really bad mood. I don't claim to know what I'm talking about. Still, to this novice, some of your post does not make logical sense.

You suggest that it is reasonable to assume that resistance problems would drop by 33% (the amount of presumed over-prescription). If so, what pathogens are becoming resistant?

Either the patient has a nasty pathogen or does not.

If the patient does not then the nasty pathogen is not exposed to the antibiotic and therefore cannot become resistant.

If the patient does have the nasty pathogen then the antibiotic is, at least in part, indicated.

Are you suggesting that pathogens should be left to their own devices and only treated medically if the normal immune system can't handle it by itself? If so, I'd think (probably incorrectly) that you're trading a bad resistance problem for a worse one -- one in which an antibiotic can't handle a pathogen as opposed to one in which a human can't handle (assumes pathogens can become resistant to natural immune measures as well).

[Darat]

Originally posted by Barbrae
ah phoo. posting info from the WHO and CDC is hardly "jumping in with both fists swinging". Overuse of antibiotics is a real pet peeve of mine and to see Darat comment that he knows MANY doctors who will give antibiotics for someone just going on vacation and to recommend this practice for this poor fellow who obviously doesn't make good choices (making his own silver) warranted comment IMHO. If it is "derailing" a thread then just ignore it.


You misunderstood my comment Barbrae.

What I was referring to was a prescription for the drugs so that they can take some with them on expedition or holiday. I was not saying I knew Doctors who just told people to take them for no reasons. The reason these Doctors will do this is that in many remote parts of the world it just is not possible to get any antibiotics. Therefore you get a scratch in the middle of say a jungle trek, an infection develops and without antibiotics your chances are not too great. Therefore it is sensible to take a broad spectrum antibiotic with you.

You also misunderstood my comment about the politician.

What I was commenting on was the fact hat he had a stupid belief that for some reason antibiotics would be in short supply after the year 2000 and embarked on a stupid (and known to be dangerous) self administered, dosage unbeknown, purity unknown course of “colloidal silver�. A more sensible way to plan for a possible shortage of antibiotics would have been to obtain supplies of antibiotics prior to 31st December 2001.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Well, it seems reasonable to assume that it would drop by at least 33%.

No. Once it has arisen in any population of a bacterial species it has the potential to propagate through the population.

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
If a patient is put on a strict antibiotics regime, the bacteria has to instantly develop resistance. In the case of haphazard antibiotics use, however, some of the bacteria survives, regardless of resistence. .

1. Not just the bacteria causing the current infection are exposed, your whole body's bacterial population is exposed and can establish a reservoir of resistance on mobile genetic elements.

2. Successful treatment does not necessarily equate with creation of elimination of all the causal microbes either in the infected site or in the body as a whole.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
If the patient does not then the nasty pathogen is not exposed to the antibiotic and therefore cannot become resistant. But not-so-nasty pathogens can become resistant.

If the patient does have the nasty pathogen then the antibiotic is, at least in part, indicated. Isuppose that depends on how one defines "pathogen". Furthermore, if a bacteria just happens to be present, there's no reason to think that the amount of antibiotics would be in the right amount.

Are you suggesting that pathogens should be left to their own devices and only treated medically if the normal immune system can't handle it by itself? Well, "pathogen" and "bacteria" are hardly synonyms. Not all pathogens are bacteria, and not all bacteria are pathogens. But I don't think that antibiotics should be prescribed unless there is a clear reason.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Darat
I was not saying I knew Doctors who just told people to take them for no reasons. The reason these Doctors will do this is that in many remote parts of the world it just is not possible to get any antibiotics. Therefore you get a scratch in the middle of say a jungle trek, an infection develops and without antibiotics your chances are not too great. Therefore it is sensible to take a broad spectrum antibiotic with you.[/quote]But that would still invite abuse. The whole point of having prescriptions is that doctors decide when they are warranted, rather than leaving it up to the patient. I'm not disputing that there are cases where this is appropriate, only that there is nothing to worry about.

A more sensible way to plan for a possible shortage of antibiotics would have been to obtain supplies of antibiotics prior to 31st December 2001. Or secure a supply of colloidal silver, to be administered after there was actually some evidence of the collapse of civilization.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
No. Once it has arisen in any population of a bacterial species it has the potential to propagate through the population.Huh?

1. Not just the bacteria causing the current infection are exposed, your whole body's bacterial population is exposed and can establish a reservoir of resistance on mobile genetic elements.-Yes, but that happens in improperly admistered cases as well.

2. Successful treatment does not necessarily equate with creation of elimination of all the causal microbes either in the infected site or in the body as a whole. But it is much more likely than in improperly adminstered cases.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

Huh?


Once a bacterial species has acquired resistance anywhere in its range then that resistant strain may spread and the reisstance may be passed among species, so there are too many factors at play to assume a simple linear relation between the prevalence of resistance and the prevalence of over-prescription.


Yes, but that happens in improperly admistered cases as well.

All I'm saying is that there is not a simple proportionality between over-prescrption and resistance, but that if anything resistane is likely to be greater than would be expected not because of relative overprescription, but simply because antibiotics are used a lot in absolute terms.


But it is much more likely than in improperly adminstered cases.

Which pushes the bias back towards an effect for bad prescribing habits, but neither of us knows the size of that effect.

Your points would be valid counters if I had said that overprescription had no effect, but what I said was that the effect of overprescription is less than we might suppose and it is the absolute level of use that is more important in the spread of antibiotic resistance. What neither of us has is hard data to support or refute my contention, but I still think my qualitative arguments are valid.

[Dredred]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
That's his color from now on.

Some more people who've explored the joy of silver-drinking:

http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/quackery/argyria/april27_2003.jpg
http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/quackery/argyria/argyrialady.jpg
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/pharmacy/Images/silver1.jpg

http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/rose1.jpghttp://www.doh.state.fl.us/pharmacy/Images/silver2.jpg

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Dredred
Some more people who've explored the joy of silver-drinking:



Yikes!

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Inhabitant of dirty drains and smelly dog ears. Have you tried cefoperazone? (Calling cascade on an intramammary preparation and using it as a topical.) Rosemary Reid tipped me the wink and Prester John supplied more information. I'm finding that at least 50% of Ps. aeruginosa isolates from canine ears are sensitive.

Bacterial resistance fascinates me, the way they always seem to come up with the goods on demand. And nobody has been able to tell me whether or not maintaining a resistance gene in the absence of the selection pressure produced by antibiotic use will be a cost to the organism. But I haven't got any nice neat answers. Except I agree with you, most resistance is caused by legitimate use of the antibiotics. That is, using them on the organisms you actually want to kill.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Have you tried cefoperazone?

No, and I'd forgotten about it's previous mentions here. What's the tradename?

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
No, and I'd forgotten about it's previous mentions here. What's the tradename?
See http://www.drugs.com/cons/Cefoperazone.html
For a nasty post-op infection they gave me Keflex for 10 days I-V.

Dave

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
No, and I'd forgotten about it's previous mentions here. What's the tradename? Pathocef Intramammary Suspension. (Keflex is cephalexin as far as I know, which is something else.)

Huh, first thing I got landed with this morning was an ear Ps. aeruginosa resistant to everything but Polymixin B. Evil organism!

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
But not-so-nasty pathogens can become resistant.

Isuppose that depends on how one defines "pathogen". Since "pathogen" is generally defined as "disease-causing organism", pathogens are pretty much "nasty" by definition.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Huh, first thing I got landed with this morning was an ear Ps. aeruginosa resistant to everything but Polymixin B. Evil organism!

Rolfe.

Can they get resistant to that as well? It punches holes in cell membranes doesn't it? So, the effect is almost physical rather than biochemical.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Mojo
Since "pathogen" is generally defined as "disease-causing organism", pathogens are pretty much "nasty" by definition. There are degrees. For instance, the common cold is usually not considered to be "nasty". Some diseases really aren't a big deal.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
There are degrees. For instance, the common cold is usually not considered to be "nasty". Well, I'm not that keen on them myself...

[DonOne]

quote:Originally posted by richardm
So, what's the deal with these new Elastoplast Silver things?

Is it pure quackery? It certainly sounds indistinguishable from many woo claims:



I think this is likely to be useful real medicine.

e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...3649&query_hl=1

and has a long history. Flamazine has been famous for a long time as a topical product. The name derives from its use in burns patients.

http://www.dressings.org/Dressings/flamazine.html

Note in that abtract the mention of bacterial resistance to silver, which directly contradicts the woo claims highlighted in the Quackwatch review.

Thank you for that BSM, that explained alot.

All sorts of odd sounding things are used in wound coverings. Alginate from seaweed is an example

To carry on the theme of derail:p Many moons ago while on work placement, I watched a district nurse place maggots into a particularly nasty leg ulcer, then reapply a dressing. I can tell you I was shocked, but later found out this kind of wound care practise has been around for centuries.