You’d almost think so, if you were to fall for the junk science propaganda being put out by “science” and “medical” web sites these past few weeks.
ut before you allow yourself to get duped into abandoning your colloidal silver altogether, or throwing away your silver-impregnated computer keyboard, here’s a short course on how to recognize anti-silver propaganda when you see it.
Hi, Steve Barwick here, for www.TheSilverEdge.com...
I can’t remember a day in the past 10 years or longer that I haven’t sprayed micro-particle colloidal silver (i.e., nanosilver) directly onto my skin.
After my shower each day, I spray colloidal silver under my arms, directly onto my face, in my eyes,
and even on top of my head.
The results: Far less underarm smell. Smoother skin on my face. No more sties in my eyes. No more dandruff.
Yet in a press release distributed by Iranian scientists at Tehran's Medical Sciences University, and re-published in articles on numerous science and medical internet sites, researchers warned that a new study demonstrates “caution should be taken” in coming into direct contact with products containing nanosilver.
Here’s what the press release stated:
Mitra Karani, of the toxicology department of the Medical Science University of Tehran, Iran, said caution should be taken in using products containing nanosilver that come in contact with the skin.
Karani said, “The emergence of nanotechnology and its wide applications in different industries has drawn abundant attentions to its toxicology so that a new branch entitled nanotoxicology is introduced…
…Given the vast applications of nanosilver as an antibacterial substance and the lack of information on its toxicological aspects, it is necessary to first focus on the skin toxicity of this substance and second on the potential of its toxicity to the organs caused by skin contacts.”
Scientists at the Medical Science University have undertaken a study to address the question of dermal and systematic side effects of long-term use of products containing silver nanoparticles.
“Based on the results, we can partly say that caution should be taken in using products containing nanosilver which are in contact with skin.
However, a definite answer requires more researches on more dilutions and other aspects of nanosilver toxicity like mutagenicity, cargenocity, teratogenicity, nervous toxicity, etc,” she said.
“We can partly say”?
What the heck does that mean? And what evidence does the press release present that consumer products containing nanosilver caused any harm to the skin at all?
Let’s see now. Uh…ZERO. But they sure use the words “toxicity” and “toxicology” a lot, don’t they?
Carefully note the scare tactic in this final paragraph from the above press release:
"However, a definite answer requires more researches on more dilutions and other aspects of nanosilver toxicity like mutagenicity, cargenocity, teratogenicity, nervous toxicity, etc."
Oooh. Scary stuff.
The implications of course being that if you come into contact with a product containing nanosilver…
…such as a computer keyboard, kitchen cutting board, a plastic food storage container that has nanosilver incorporated into its makeup, or even a bit of bottled colloidal silver…
…you could be risking serious health issues such as mutations, cancer, birth defects, and nervous system damage.
Of course, the researchers are not saying they actually found any of these things in their study. Not at all.
As a matter of fact, I’ve read the entire study, and they didn’t find any such harm. They’re just saying they’d like to do additional studies to look at these possibilities.
What’s more, it turns out the researchers didn’t use a single consumer product containing nanosilver in the study.
Not one – in spite of the fact they conclude consumers should use caution in regards to coming into direct contact with any product containing nanosilver!
Finally, no nanosilver was ever tested on human skin in the entire study. (But wait until you find out what kind of skin they did test it on!)
Nevertheless, after reading the above press release, you’d have little choice but to come away with the conclusion that products containing nanosilver are not only toxic to human skin, but could also cause extremely serious health problems.
Do you see how this works?
The press release is very cleverly worded to impart the idea that the use of nanosilver in consumer products is dangerous to humans.
But in reality, everything the press release says is speculative and sensationalistic, has little to do with the actual study, and is designed solely to scare rather than educate.
Folks, this is how the propaganda against colloidal silver gets started.
While the press release quoted above doesn’t present even the slightest iota of evidence against the use of antimicrobial silver in consumer products…
…you can bet your bottom dollar that in the weeks and months directly ahead the anti-silver environmentalists and other shills for Big Pharma will cite the study mentioned in that press release…
…and claim it provides stunning evidence against the use of antimicrobial silver in consumer products.
What’s more, web sites sponsored by Big Pharma, such as WebMD, will likely footnote the study, and reference it as evidence against the use of products like colloidal silver that can be applied topically.
Finally, “medical” and “science” web sites will repeat the article, ad nauseum, replete with shrill headlines like “New Study Shows Nanosilver Toxic to Skin!” or “Study Warns of Ill Effects from
Nanosilver to Human Skin!”
Indeed, it’s already begun.
When I googled the word “cargenocity” from the above press release…
…I found the release had been spread to more than 20 other web sites – thinly disguised as “medical” and “science” articles…
…all in just the few short weeks after the study was published in mid-August.
By the way, there’s no such word as “cargenocity.” Not in the English language. And not in the medical literature. That’s why I googled it when I found it in the above article.
What the researchers likely meant to say is carcinogenicity, meaning cancer-causing or tumor-causing.
That just goes to demonstrate the ridiculously low caliber of research being touted here. These Iranian researchers apparently don’t even know the proper terminology for the medical conditions they wish to study.
But even that doesn’t stop the scientific and medical press from dutifully quoting the press release as if it were Gospel.
New York Times, or National Enquirer?
If you dig a little further, you’ll find a much longer article on this nanosilver study in a newspaper called Iran Daily.
An authoritative source, right? Must be the Iranian equivalent of the New York Times.
But the article, published in the Science section of the paper, appears directly below an article titled “Ecstasy Can Treat Cancers.”
What’s more, it’s positioned above an article titled “Critters Moving Away From Global Warming.”
(For the sake of full disclosure, there have indeed been studies demonstrating that an analogue of MMDA – the active ingredient in the street drug Ecstasy – can be used to treat certain cancers. But at this point, the dose of Ecstasy required to achieve anti-cancer benefits would be so high as to result in overdose and death.)
In the Iran Today article you’ll discover that the chief researcher in the nanosilver study, Ms. Mitra Karani -- who apparently has an “MSc” degree in toxicology from Tehran Medical University –
(I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume Ms. Karani isn’t the one who doesn’t know how to properly spell carcinogenicity.)
Why use a guinea pig? According to Ms. Karani in the article from Iran Daily, “Because of its high skin sensitivity.”
Well, that’s fair, isn’t it? Take an animal already noted for “high skin sensitivity” and expose it to nanosilver. Then come out with blaring headlines that consumer products containing nanosilver are dangerous.
Of course, you don’t find out the researchers were studying guinea pig skin and not human skin, unless you find the longer article in the Iran Daily!
The press release that’s being distributed to dozens of web sites fails to mention that fact completely -- all the while warning that contact with nanosilver could be “harmful” to human skin!
But wait, there’s more chicanery. In fact, it only gets worse…
Digging a Little Deeper
Digging into this story a little deeper, I finally found the study abstract from the International Journal of Nanomedicine. Here’s what it tell us:
“Toxic responses were assessed by clinical and histopathologic parameters. In all experimental animals the sites of exposure were scored for any type of dermal toxicity and compared with negative control and positive control groups.
In autopsy studies during the acute test, no significant changes in organ weight or major macroscopic changes were detected, but dose-dependent histopathologic abnormalities were seen in skin, liver, and spleen of all test groups.
In addition, experimental animals subjected to subchronic tests showed greater tissue abnormalities than the subjects of acute tests. It seems that colloidal nanosilver has the potential to provide target organ toxicities in a dose- and time-dependent manner.”
Now that’s interesting. A lot of science and medical terminology. I’ll try to boil it down:
The study found no significant “macroscopic” changes (i.e., no big changes) from exposure to nanosilver in the short-term (i.e., acute) portion of the study.
But it did find small “dose-dependent histopathologic abnormalities” from exposure to nanosilver in the “skin, liver, and spleen of all test groups.”
In other words, the higher the dosage of nanosilver the researchers used, the more tiny abnormalities they found.
Additionally, in the long-term (i.e., subchronic) portion of the study – even greater tissue abnormalities were found.
In fact, the longer they used the nanosilver on the guinea pigs, and the more highly concentrated the dose, the more tissue abnormalities they discovered.
Now that sounds potentially serious. So I dug further.
After all, even the study abstract didn’t give me the four key pieces of information I was looking for, i.e.,
…how much nanosilver was used on these poor little guinea pigs?…
The abstract then led me to a PDF copy of the full study, which you can find here.
As I began reading the study I wondered what surprises I’d find. I didn’t have long to wait. Under the topic “Experimental Animals and Housing” I found the following:
“Forty-eight experimental male Hartley albino guinea pigs were obtained from the Pasteur Institute of Iran at five to six weeks of age and 350 to 450 g body weight.”
So the study on the effects of nanosilver on skin were conducted on tiny ALBINO guinea pigs just a tad over a month old, and weighing just 12 to 15 ounces apiece!
Uhhmm…by definition, isn’t albino skin different than normal skin?
So this is what the chief researcher meant when she said she used animals with “high skin sensitivity”? Apparently so.
But did you see a single news headline screaming “Study Shows Tiny Albino Guinea Pigs Should Avoid Contact With Nanosilver Products”? Nope.
Indeed, every single article I was able to find about this study completely “overlooked” that crucial bit of information, and crowed about the potential dangers to humans of coming into contact with nanosilver.
You see, the propaganda machine knows if they included the fact that the study was conducted on tiny albino guinea pigs – it would detract from their ability to scare people away from using products containing antimicrobial silver.
People are intelligent enough to know that a study on the effects of nanosilver on the skin of a 12-ounce albino guinea pig doesn’t have much relevance to them.
Indeed, knowing the study was conducted on tiny albino guinea pigs – and not on humans -- most people would surmise that the study had been purposely set up to demonstrate skin toxicity from nanosilver right from the start.
How Much Nanosilver Was Used?
As I mentioned earlier, not a single consumer product containing nanosilver was used in the study. Nevertheless, the study was widely proclaimed to demonstrate that people should avoid contact with such products.
In reality, the study reveals that the researchers utilized raw silver nanoparticles that were mixed into a liquid solution.
What’s more, each of the tiny albino guinea pigs had 10% of their body hair shaved down to the skin each day, and the raw silver nanoparticles were essentially globbed onto their skin several times a day for periods ranging between 14 days and a whopping 13 weeks.
The silver was then covered with gauze, and the gauze was in turn glued – yes, glued – to their bodies!
Of course, the nicks, cuts and lacerations from shaving the skin of those tiny critters each day would likely be more than enough to provide a pathway to increased absorption of raw nanosilver directly into their bodies.
And who knows what effect the glue applied to their bodies each day could have had?
So should we at all be surprised the researchers found “histopathologic tissue abnormalities”? Really?
Under the section of the study on “Materials and Methods” I finally found the answer to that question:
“Three different aqueous solutions (100, 1000, and 10,000 μg/mL) were provided by Dr K Gilani in the Pharmaceutics Lab., Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences.”
The liquid nanosilver solutions were, respectively, 100 ppm, 1,000 ppm and 10,000 ppm. (The term “ug/mL” denotes ppm in medical talk.)
Wow. These tiny, barely over a month old guinea pigs weighing just 12 to 15 ounces apiece, were subjected to repeated daily applications – for up to 13 weeks on end – of 100 ppm, 1,000 ppm and even 10,000 ppm of raw nanoparticle silver.
For a human that would be the equivalent of approximately 20,000 ppm, 200,000 ppm and 2,000,000 ppm (yes, two million ppm), respectively – ungodly levels for daily exposure over a total of 10% of your body!
Of course, literally NO ONE using a consumer product – such as a computer keyboard with nanosilver incorporated into its makeup -- is ever going to be exposed to even as much as 100 ppm of silver nanoparticles…not even in years of daily use of the product.
The idea is ludicrous at best.
After all, silver is expensive. And just enough nanosilver is used in consumer products to keep microbial growth at a bare minimum. And the nanosilver is infused evenly into the product.
You’d have to come into contact with dozens of nansosilver consumer products every single day, and somehow absorb all of the silver out of them upon contact, in order to be exposed to 100 ppm worth of nanosilver, much less 1,000 ppm or 10,000 ppm.
And of course, the human equivalent of the above numbers would be impossible to become exposed to from a typical nanosilver consumer product – even over an entire lifetime of usage.
Yet these tiny albino guinea pigs were exposed to nanosilver concentrations of 100 ppm, 1,000 ppm, and even 10,000 ppm daily – and directly onto the shaved skin constituting a full 10% of their body mass.
Do you see how ridiculous and sensationalistic the conclusions being drawn from this study are?
And what did the researchers discover from this ludicrous study?
“All observed toxic skin responses were dose- and time-dependent, which means that greatest histopathologic changes were seen in the 10,000 μg/mL group in the 13-week study and the lowest in the 100 μg/mL group in the acute test (Figure 4E).”.
Ah, yes. They discovered that the highest rate of “toxic” skin responses corresponded with the most excessive levels of highly concentrated nanosilver used for the longest period of time.
The 10,000 ppm nanosilver produced greater changes to the skin and tissues of the tiny albino guinea pigs exposed to it daily for weeks on end, than the 100 ppm nanosilver did when used in shorter term periods. Big surprise, right?
The study authors even admit the following in the summary of the study:
“Although the concentrations of nanosilver were high and unrealistic, to our knowledge this is the first study on dermal and systemic toxicity of nanosilver in acute and subchronic treatment.”
Listen, the concentrations of nanosilver weren’t just “high and unrealistic.” They were so high they made the study irrelevant –
-- particularly in regards to consumer products that incorporate relatively miniscule amounts of nanosilver into their makeup in order to help prevent microbial growth.
Honestly, I know I’ve repeated this term several times already, but ludicrous is the only word I can think of to describe this entire study.
Of course, in the press release put out by the researchers, you didn’t see the admission that “high and unrealistic” concentrations of nanosilver were used on tiny albino guinea pigs, right?
Nor will you find it in any of the news articles being published across the internet on the medical and science news sites.
The researchers didn’t bother to tell the public how the study was actually conducted, or how contrived its sensationalistic conclusions were in regards to consumer products containing nanosilver.
The sensationalistic headlines “Nanosilver Toxic to Skin” were designed solely to scare the public away from using products containing nanosilver, not to tell the truth about the study.
As you can see, you can prove just about anything you want when you have an underlying agenda, and you’re willing to go to exaggerated lengths to fulfill it.
For example, what would have happened if the researchers had applied excessively high levels of some other commonly used consumer product to the sensitive shaved skin of these albino guinea pigs?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, they used a highly concentrated 1000% hydrogen peroxide solution instead of the normal 3% hydrogen peroxide solution a normal human would use on their skin?
Considering the fact that a mere 35% hydrogen peroxide solution will burn human skin in seconds…
…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that a highly concentrated 1000% solution used repeatedly for days and even weeks on end would burn holes right through the skin of those poor little critters…
…and there would have been massive damage to internal tissues and organs as well!
But the researchers could then release press reports on their study, replete with blaring headlines saying “Hydrogen Peroxide Shown to Be Toxic!” and warn people not to use hydrogen peroxide products.
Of course, the press reports would all cleverly fail to mention that tiny albino guinea pigs were used in the study…
…and that the levels of hydrogen peroxide used were many multitudes of times above normal human levels, and the exposure was for excessively long periods of time.
Do you see how this works?
I’m just trying to get the point across that you can pick anything – even something as innocuous as, say, citrus juice…
…and if you concentrate it strongly enough and then apply it repeatedly over a relatively long period of time to the hyper-sensitive shaved skin of a tiny albino guinea pig, you’re going to be able to “prove” that contact with citrus juice is “toxic.”
But in reality, all you’ve done is demonstrated what a sneaky magician (i.e., agenda-driven scientist) you really are.
Protective Effect of Silver on Skin and Human Cells
Study after study has demonstrated the protective effects of silver on human cells -- including skin -- when properly utilized in moderation and common sense.
Indeed, a powerful silver ointment known as silver sulfadiazine, has for decades now been the #1 treatment for the healing of skin and prevention of infection in hospital burn wards, world-wide!
What’s more, silver coated nylon fabric and bandages are now routinely used directly on the skin of patients in hospital and home settings to cover open wounds and surgical incisions, in order to prevent infection and maintain optimal conditions for rapid healing.
In a clinical study conducted at Syracuse Medical University, titled “Effects of Electrically Generated Silver Ions on Human Cells and Wound Healing,” Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D., demonstrated that electrically generated silver ions triggered astonishing skin and soft tissue healing.
In fact, in this study he demonstrated that brand new stem cells were actually produced when electrically generated silver was applied to infected wounds, and rapid new skin and tissue growth took place!
Dr. Becker also noted that “no overt local or systemic side effects were noted,” even though he was generating silver directly into the infected wounds on a continuous basis for weeks on end.
Dr. Becker further noted, “Open cavities began to fill with abundant, healthy granulation tissue, producing rapid coverage of exposed bone surfaces. This was followed by rapid ingrowth of full-thickness, innervated skin, and healing of bony non-unions.”
In the bestselling book The pH Miracle: Balance Your Body, Reclaim Your Health by Dr. Robert O. Young, PhD. (pgs 137-138), there’s an account of dramatic healing of severely burned skin by
applying colloidal silver topically, multiple times per day:
"I was told I had second-and third-degree burns on my face and third-degree burns on my hands….
…the very next day my mother brought me colloidal silver, with directions to use it externally and internally as frequently as possible, because it assists in growth of new tissue.
She had learned from Dr. Young that silver's positive electrical charge counters the negative charge of a damaged body area, bringing it back into balance and enabling the body to regenerate and heal itself.
Mom sprayed undiluted colloidal silver onto the burned areas, and I took it by drops under my tongue…
…My mother applied the silver many times a day. It was absorbed into my skin instantly. It felt cool and tingling and loosened the tension on my face, hands, and fingertips…
…After only one day of treatment with silver, it was obvious the healing was happening very rapidly. New tissue and skin grew back at an accelerated pace.
The swelling of my head diminished rapidly and the breathing apparatus came off almost immediately.
The plastic surgeon told me I was healing twice as fast as any burn patient he had ever seen in his long career."
And as Dr. Ron Surowitz, head of the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association, states regarding the use of colloidal silver for skin conditions such as stubborn acne and facial infections:
“...Some of my teenage patients with facial skin infections seem to do well with a spray of colloidal silver on the skin and into the mouth once or twice daily. Sometimes higher amounts are needed.
This certainly beats taking antibiotics for years and years to prevent these skin conditions...
In short, silver has been used topically in an astonishing number of cases, over many decades, and has demonstrated remarkable healing to human cells, skin and tissue.
Naturally, these uses were generally in moderation, and were conducted with common sense – quite unlike the study using 10,000 ppm nanosilver on the skin of highly sensitive tiny albino guinea pigs for weeks on end!
What’s more, nanosilver has been used in cosmetics as a preservative for decades. In other words, when women add their foundation, blush, eye shadow or gloss, they may very well be painting their skin with silver nanoparticles, as well.
As Julie Gabriel, author of The Green Beauty Guide, has stated:
"Since medieval times silver has been used as a bactericidal agent that helps heal skin abrasions and burns…
…In natural cosmetics, colloidal silver makes a safe and nonirritating preservative with an added anti-inflammatory bonus.
I do recommend colloidal silver in my book, The Green Beauty Guide, as an alternative to paraben and formaldehyde preservatives.”
And really…that’s the point.
Nanosilver should replace the use of truly toxic materials such as formaldehyde that are commonly used as preservatives in a variety of consumer products that are applied to the skin.
The Bottom Line
The bottom line is that the Iranian researchers used tiny albino guinea pigs known to have hyper-sensitive skin, shaved 10% of their skin each day and exposed them to excessively high concentrations of nanosilver up to 10,000 ppm daily for up to 13 weeks.
Then they sent out press releases warning of potentially dire consequences of HUMAN exposure to consumer products containing nanosilver, without ever revealing that not a single nanosilver consumer product was ever tested.
On top of that, they salted their press releases with ominous references to potential “carcinogenicity,” “mutagenicity,” “teratogenicity” and “nervous toxicity,” even though in reality the study didn’t examine any of those factors.
And of course, much to their shame, the medical, scientific, environmental and popular news media have dutifully picked up on the press release from these researchers…
…and have repeated the manufactured, sensationalistic “evidence” against nanosilver without even so much as a critical glance at this dubious study.
After all, sensationalism sells. And pesky facts and details are largely considered to be inconsequential in today’s media.
It’s Happened Before
Has this type of rank exaggeration, sensationalism and misdirection (bordering on fraud, in my opinion) ever happened before?
Yes, of course.
Readers might well remember the screaming headlines “Nanosilver Harms Cells” back in 2009, at the height of the campaign by radical anti-silver environmentalists to force the EPA to ban consumer products containing nanosilver.
The environmental groups, which it turns out had been taking huge amounts of money from charitable foundations associated with Big Pharma, claimed a “major new study” had proven the cytotoxic (i.e., cell damaging) effects of nanosilver.
Here’s exactly what they said:
"Yet another major study on nano-silver toxicity has been published…The study found that nano-silver used in food storage materials, such as plastic bags and containers, can directly interact with genomes and bind with DNA, interfering with DNA replication.
Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging, many of which contain nano-silver. Help us ensure that these products are safe by supporting our petition to the EPA."
But when the actual study was tracked down and examined, the real truth emerged:
First, it turned out to be a very small study conducted by a little-known research center in Red China…not a “major study” as the environmentalists contended.
· Secondly, the research center in China that conducted the study had known ties to several large pharmaceutical companies specializing in the manufacture of prescription antibiotic drugs. No conflict of interest there, right?
Thirdly, the study was actually conducted on the effects of nanosilver on E. coli cell cultures. That’s right, not human cell cultures, but bacterial cell cultures!
(See this article for full details on the study.)
In the end, all the study really demonstrated was that nanosilver destroys infectious microorganisms such as E. coli, which of course, has been known for decades.
Indeed, this is one of the reasons people use antimicrobial silver in the first place!
But the radical anti-silver environmentalists screamed from the rooftops that the study proved silver used in consumer products was harmful – to humans!
This same tactic has been used over and over again – for example, in the infamous “Fathead Minnow” study that was claimed to demonstrate nanosilver leaching from consumer products would be toxic to fish in the wild.
Of course, rather than studying the effects of nanosilver on fish in the wild, the researchers simply filled a fish tank with some poor minnows and began filling it with increasingly higher and higher concentrations of nanosilver until toxic effects were observed.
They could have done the same thing with Kool-Aid, of course. Or any other relatively innocuous substance. After all, at some concentration, everything is “toxic” if you’re drenched in it for days or weeks on end!
But this is how the anti-silver propagandists work to scare the public into turning against the use of antimicrobial silver in consumer products.
Unfortunately, agenda-driven junk science is now the rule, rather than the exception – particularly where nanosilver is concerned.
There seems to be an all-out full court press to taint antimicrobial silver of any kind with the broad brush stroke of “toxicity”…
…in spite of the fact that silver has been used safely for millennia in human health and as a topical disinfectant.
Indeed, according to a study from the
In fact, the first known ‘nanosilver’ (i.e., colloidal silver) was produced way back in 1899.
…on boats and luxury cruise liners……as well as being used internally and externally by millions of natural health enthusiasts as an infection-fighting agent.
So the next time you see sensationalistic news headlines claiming a new study has demonstrated antimicrobial silver to be “toxic to humans,” don’t depend solely on the news article for your information.
Instead, be sure to get your bullshit meter out, track down the study and read it carefully, word for word.
As you read it, watch for the pertinent study details, like how much silver was used…for how long was it used…and exactly what was it actually used on.
Then, compare that to the shrill claims in the press release or news articles about the study.
When you see terms like “albino guinea pigs” or “Fathead Minnows” or “10,000 ppm,” be sure to check your bullshit meter frequently. The readings will probably be off the charts.
Trust me. Only in this manner will you be able to differentiate whether or not the study is even remotely relevant to human use of antimicrobial silver.
Yours for the safe, sane and responsible use of colloidal silver,
Steve Barwick, author
P.S. Clearly, the media onslaught against nanosilver and other forms of colloidal silver continues unabated.
It seems like hardly a week goes by that a brand new media attack against antimicrobial silver isn’t launched, either by the anti-silver environmentalists, or the medical establishment.
This is a propaganda tactic called “saturation.”
By inundating the public with barrage after barrage of negative news against antimicrobial silver – however untrue – eventually the public becomes saturated with the information, and begins to believe it.
After all, it seems like “everybody” is saying antimicrobial silver is dangerous.
During WWII, enemy propagandists used the same tactic. As master Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels purportedly stated, “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.”
Of course, the reason for this tidal wave of lies being repeated against antimicrobial silver is that Big Pharma doesn’t want the public to be able to cure their own infections with a few cents worth of colloidal silver.
Nor do they want the public to be able to curtail the spread of infectious microorganisms by using consumer products that incorporate antimicrobial silver into their makeup.
So the media drum beats continue unabated against antimicrobial silver – week after week, month after month, year after year -- until eventually the public becomes convinced silver is “dangerous.”
Then the medical and environmental bureaucrats can begin restricting the public’s access to antimicrobial silver, under the guise of “protecting” them from a clear and present threat to their health and well-being.
We are already well into that process, with the EPA’s recent tactic of imposing heavy fines on companies for advertising the antimicrobial benefits of nanosilver in consumer products.
First, learn to discern the difference between the truth about antimicrobial silver, and the tidal wave of lies being created to discredit its use.
In this article, I hope I’ve helped open your eyes to some of the egregious propaganda tactics being used to discredit safe, natural antimicrobial silver.
Secondly, beat the medical and environmental bureaucrats at their own game by learning how to produce your own antimicrobial silver using a high-quality colloidal silver generator.
Once you own the means of production, they can never take it away from you.
of antimicrobial silver in consumer products.
But once you own a high-quality colloidal silver generator…
…they simply can’t stop you from making your own antimicrobial silver in the comfort and privacy of your own home…
…and using it to protect your household and your family members against infection and disease.
Learn more about the powerful infection-fighting qualities of colloidal silver at this link.
And learn 7 good reasons to make your own colloidal silver at this link.
Important Note and Disclaimer: The contents of this Ezine have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and reliability thereof. The author, Steve Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience writing professionally about natural health topics. He is not a doctor. Therefore, nothing stated in this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical advice. Nothing reported herein is intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The author is simply reporting in journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage. Therefore, the information and data presented should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with caution. Readers should verify for themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas, conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein. All important health care decisions should be made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and experienced health care professional. Readers are solely responsible for their choices. The author and publisher disclaim responsibility or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a result of the use or application of any information included in this Ezine.