Colloidal silver is an absolutely amazing healing substance, as any experienced user can attest. That’s demonstrated by literally dozens of clinical studies proving its effectiveness against infectious microorganisms. But does colloidal silver really kill 650 different pathogens?

And there are literally thousands upon thousands of anecdotal accounts from experienced colloidal silver users the world over, who have healed their own infections or cured their diseases using colloidal silver


Does colloidal silver really kill 650 different pathogens? – google image

Plus, there’s medical literature going all of the way back to the late 1800’s extolling the healing virtues of colloidal silver, such as this quote from Alfred Searle, published in his book, The Use of Colloids in Health and Disease, way back in 1919:

“Applying colloidal silver to human subjects has been done in a large number of cases with astonishingly successful results…it has the advantage of being rapidly fatal to parasites without toxic action on its host. It is quite stable. It protects rabbits from ten times the lethal dose of tetanus or diphtheria toxin.”

Or this quote from the National Druggist (page 338), back in August 1920:

“…colloidal silver has proved its value in combating the following ailments among others – tonsilitis, gonorrhoeal conjunctivitis, spring catarrh, pustular eczema of scalp, septic ulcers of legs, boils, chronic cystitis, ringworm, soft sores. But we must not prolong the list of the good works of colloidal silver. Suffice it that at the present time it is the most extensively used in medicine of all the sols.”

And of course, to this very day top doctors, clinical researchers and other cutting edge medical experts (such as the famous cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Gerald Lemole; see here) enthusiastically recommend the use of colloidal silver for healing infections and related diseases.

For more examples, check out what some of the top medical experts in North America have to say, in my article “What Real Medical, Scientific and Clinical Experts Have to Say About Colloidal Silver Usage” at this link.

But 650 Different Pathogens?

So there’s no doubt about the astonishing healing and infection-fighting qualities of colloidal silver.

However, if you Google the term “colloidal silver,” you’ll find hundreds of websites making the claim that “colloidal silver has been proven to kill over 650 different pathogens.”

Some of these websites even claim “colloidal silver has been proven to heal over 650 different diseases.”

Of course, neither of these claims is completely true. There’s a slight exaggeration involved. And I’m happy to explain it.

First of all, to my knowledge, no one has ever tested colloidal silver on “over 650 different pathogens.” And no one has ever used it to cure “over 650 different diseases.”

As effective as colloidal silver is against infection and disease, there’s no need to exaggerate its over 100 year track record as one of the most broad-spectrum natural antimicrobial substances on the face of the earth.

Its track record speaks for itself. And the exaggerated claims that it’s been “proven to kill over 650 different pathogens” or “cure over 650 different diseases” serve only to give critics something to latch onto and gripe about.

So let me set the record straight, as best I can. The ‘650’ figure seems to have come from an old 1978 Science Digest article on the antimicrobial benefits of silver, that stated:

“Thanks to eye-opening research, silver is re-emerging as a wonder of modern medicine. An antibiotic kills perhaps a half-dozen different disease organisms, but silver kills some 650. Resistant strains fail to develop. Moreover, silver is virtually non-toxic.”

— Science Digest, “Our Mightiest Germ Fighter” by Jim Powell, March 1978

Now that’s an amazing statement. And taken at face value, it’s true. And you’ll find it widely quoted on numerous websites concerned with colloidal silver.

But did the Science Digest statement actually pertain to colloidal silver – i.e., the typical liquid colloidal silver solutions being sold in health food stores all across America and around the world?

Or was it referring to some other form of silver? And where exactly did Science Digest come up with this “650” figure?

Well, here’s the answer:

The “650” figure appears to have been taken from an older 1973 study on a medical compound known as silver sulfadiazine.

The study was published in the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Here’s what the researchers stated in their study synopsis:

“657 different types of bacteria from 22 different bacterial species were exposed to silver sulfadiazine. All strains were inhibited by levels which can easily be obtained topically. Strains resistant to sulfadiazine or multiple antibiotics were sensitive to silver sulfadiazine.”

— Carr, Howard S., Wlodkowski, Theodore J., and Rosenkranz, Herbert S. 1973. Silver sulfadiazine: in vitro antibacterial activity. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 4(5), 585- 587.

So this study appears to be the origin of the widely touted “650” figure, which has been bandied about ever since 1978 by just about every journalist who has ever written about colloidal silver. It’s even quoted, without attribution, in numerous clinical studies on colloidal silver.

But it’s important to understand that silver sulfadiazine is not the same thing as “colloidal silver.”

Indeed, silver sulfadiazine is a prescription cream, or ointment. It contains antimicrobial silver. And it’s often used in hospital burn wards to help prevent infections from setting in on the dead, necrotizing skin of serious burn victims.

You see, most hospitalized burn victims don’t die from the burns, but instead, from the infections that set in afterwards. So silver sulfadiazine has been used in hospital burn wards to help save burn victims from infection for literally decades.

But the only thing silver sulfadiazine has in common with colloidal silver is the fact that both products contain silver as their central healing ingredient. And of course, silver, in just about any form, kills infectious microbes. And for most people, that connection between the two products is good enough.

Does it really make any difference that the study was actually about silver sulfadiazine, and not about the typical colloidal silver products to which it is so regularly attributed?

Well, yes and no. After all, the study clearly and unequivocally demonstrates the broad-spectrum effectiveness of antimicrobial silver. And in the study, the silver clearly worked on over 650 different strains of pathogenic microorganisms.

But in no way was colloidal silver actually tested against these pathogens. So for a colloidal silver vendor to claim his product has been “proven to kill over 650 different infectious microorganisms” or “cure over 650 different diseases” is a gross overstatement of the facts, to say the least.

Granted, if the silver content of silver sulfadiazine kills over 650 different pathogens – which the study indeed demonstrated – then the silver content in colloidal silver will probably do the same. After all, silver is silver.

But the tests simply haven’t been done to actually prove colloidal silver kills over 650 different pathogens. So it’s at least a tiny bit disingenuous to make that ever-so-widely-touted “650 different pathogens” claim in regards to typical colloidal silver products sold in health food stores.

Finally, when people claim antimicrobial silver in any form has been “proven to heal over 650 different diseases,” they are flat-out misstating – or at the very least, misunderstanding – what the data actually says.

There’s a huge difference between killing 650 different microbes, and healing 650 different diseases. It’s kind of like saying anti-lock brakes are on millions of cars today therefore anti-lock brakes have saved millions of lives. The one claim doesn’t necessarily follow the other no matter how closely related they may be.

Another Misquoted Study


Another often-misquoted study on colloidal silver’s effectiveness against pathogens is the one said to have been conducted by a researcher named Dr. Larry C. Ford, M.D. at UCLA in 1988 (or in 1992, depending upon which source you read).

According to numerous online sources, his study supposedly verified the 650-plus figure for colloidal silver. However, the study has been shrouded in controversy. And the author of the study later died, reportedly of suicide, so the controversy has never been resolved.

According to at least a few online sources, UCLA actually disavowed the study after colloidal silver vendors began making claims like “UCLA has confirmed that colloidal silver kills over 650 different microbes.”

Apparently, UCLA didn’t disavow the study because it was poorly done, or was technically flawed in any way, but instead, because the researcher apparently conducted it independently for his own commercial purposes, without permission of the university.

And UCLA apparently didn’t want their name being used in association with the study, as it would appear they were endorsing a commercial product they were not involved in developing.

So when you read that “UCLA has confirmed that 650 different pathogens are killed by colloidal silver” that statement is arguably false.

While the controversial Ford study may or may not have demonstrated the ability of colloidal silver to kill over 650 different pathogens, UCLA apparently had nothing to do with the study.

Yes, the researcher was from UCLA, and the study was likely conducted there, but without the auspices or involvement of the university itself.

Of course, none of this seems to stop people from making the claim that “UCLA has confirmed that 650 different pathogens are killed by colloidal silver.”

Does Any of This Really Matter?

As I stated at the outset of this article, there’s so much bona-fide, thoroughly conclusive evidence backing up the astonishingly broad-spectrum effectiveness of colloidal silver, there’s no reason to exaggerate the case.


Colloidal Nano Silver 10ppm

As Harvard-educated Dr. Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., of the world-famous Tahoma Clinic in Washington State recently pointed out, in many cases of infection colloidal silver far outclasses conventional antibiotic drugs. He states:

“No matter how much a germ mutates, it can’t change enough to escape the damaging effects of colloidal silver. And in the process, the silver doesn’t harm human tissue or kill off the good bacteria in the intestine the way antibiotics and other medications do.”

And as Dr. Joseph Weissman, M.D. board certified immunologist and Assistant Clinical Professor at the University of California Medical School has stated regarding the vital importance of becoming thoroughly familiar with the use of colloidal silver:

“Today, many antibiotics are losing the battle with germs. Fortunately, the best germ killer, which was discovered over 2,000 years ago, is finally getting the proper attention from medical science – natural silver. I sincerely recommend that everyone have electrically generated colloidal silver in their home as an antiseptic, antibacterial and antifungal agent.”

You can find literally hundreds more quotes from bona-fide medical and clinical research experts extolling the myriad of healing and infection-fighting virtues of colloidal silver and other forms of antimicrobial silver at this link.

So let’s keep the record straight. There’s simply no need to exaggerate the case on behalf of colloidal silver by claiming that it “has been proven to kill over 650 different pathogens,” or that colloidal silver “has been proven to cure over 650 different diseases.”

The astonishing effectiveness of colloidal silver is not in dispute. Numerous clinical studies prove beyond any shadow of a doubt its broad-spectrum effectiveness against multitudes of pathogens, including many of the deadly drug-resistant pathogens the health authorities are so up-in-arms over these days.


Leave a comment

Item added to cart.
0 items - VND0