Are you getting tired of seeing all of those sensationalistic articles on the internet from the radical, anti-silver environmentalists who continue to claim antimicrobial silver is “toxic” to all living things and therefore should be restricted from use in consumer products?
If it gets your goat as much as it gets mine to see the radical anti-silver environmentalists continue to lie about the supposed “toxicity” of silver nanoparticles, I have some good news for you!
Here’s an abstract of a brand new 2012 clinical study published in the respected journal Nanotoxicology, in which researchers tested silver nanoparticles for genotoxicity, acute oral and dermal toxicity, eye and dermal irritation and corrosion, and skin sensitization.
And what did the researchers find? Zilch!
No Genotoxicity!
In bacterial tests performed, the researchers found that silver nanoparticles did NOT induce genotoxicity. This means there was no toxicity or harm to the integrity of the cell’s genetic material.
As you’re probably aware by now, the alleged genotoxicity of antimicrobial silver is one of the biggest rallying points for the radical anti-silver environmentalists. They scare the bejabbers out of people by telling them they’re going to suffer severe genetic damage – maybe even induce cancer -- if they use a nanosilver-impregnated computer keyboard, or brush their teeth with a nanosilver-impregnated toothbrush, or use a nanosilver-impregnated food storage container to keep their potato salad fresh. But this study leaves the anti-silver enviro-nuts without a leg to stand on.
Of course, the naysayers will point to the bacterial tests from this study, which demonstrated that some cytotoxicity (cell toxicity) was observed. But this of course is to be expected since silver is a known bacteriocide, and is commonly used as an anti-bacterial agent. In fact, that’s the whole point of using antimicrobial silver: It kills bacteria, as this study demonstrated.
But no harm to genetic material was found, even in such a primitive life-form as a bacteria!
No Abnormalities from Oral or Dermal Use!
What’s more, in animal tests, using acute (i.e., short term, but severe) oral and dermal doses consisting of a whopping 2,000 mg/kg (ppm) silver nanoparticles, NONE of the lab animals tested showed any abnormal signs or mortality.
According to the study authors, “In acute oral and dermal toxicity tests using rats, none of the rats showed any abnormal signs or mortality at a dose level of ~ 2000 mg/kg.”
Wow, that’s a LOT of silver to give a tiny lab rat. Most humans ingest only 10 or 20 ppm colloidal silver, and are significantly bigger than a lab rat weighing only a few mere ounces. Yet there was no harm or abnormal signs in the lab rats given 2,000 ppm oral doses.
What’s more, there was NO acute eye or dermal irritation or corrosion when the silver nanoparticles were tested in the eyes and on the skin of the animals.
However, there was some extremely low skin sensitization. Of the 20 lab animals tested for skin sensitivity to silver nanoparticles, only one showed low level signs of erythema (i.e., superficial reddening of the skin), prompting researchers to classify the silver nanoparticles used as "a weak skin sensitizer."
While the study abstract admits guinea pigs were used for the skin tests, what isn’t said is that they were probably using albino guinea pigs, which are commonly used in skin sensitivy tests in clinical studies because of the susceptibility of their skin to irritants. (For more information on this kind of testing, see my article on colloidal silver and skin sensitivity here: http://www.thesilveredge.com/Propaganda_Against_CS.shtml).
So, unless you're an albino guinea pig, I wouldn't worry too much about the skin sensitivity test results. After all, only one animal out of 20 showed even the slightest sign of skin sensitivity. In the past I’ve routinely used 10,000 ppm nanosilver cream on my skin for short periods of time with only beneficial effects.
Important Study…
All-in-all, this is probably one of the most important nanosilver studies ever published. What’s even better is that it was published in a highly respected medical journal.
And it completely refutes the contentions of the radical anti-silver environmentalists who continuously claim silver is "toxic" to all living things including little fishies, kitty cats, puppy dogs, and yes…even humans.
The bottom line is that after this, it’s going to be very difficult for the radical anti-silver environmentalists to make their sensationalistic claims with a straight face. Of course, they’ll continue to try. After all, they’ve never had any trouble lying to the public in the past.
But every time you see one of their sky-is-falling articles in which nanosilver is portrayed as being more “toxic” than plutonium, just email the authors a copy of this article, and smile. It will do you heart good!
Yours for the safe, sane and responsible use of colloidal silver,
Helpful Links:
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.
Copyright 2012 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ 85380-1239 | All rights reserved
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment