Colloidal Silver Secrets

· Colloidal Silver Cures MRSA

Big Pharma Ignores Colloidal Silver, Says Taxpayers Must Fund Research Into New Antibiotic Drugs Or Risk Dying of Superbug Infections!

2011-12-29T18:49:00.000-08:00

Did you ever wonder why the European Union banned the sale of colloidal silver back in January of 2010, just as new studies began demonstrating how effective it is against the growing threat of antibiotic-resistant super-pathogens?

Is it any coincidence that Big Pharma is now threatening to let millions of people DIE of superbug infections unless taxpayers start footing the bill for the needed new antibiotic drugs…and that the governments of the European Union are now the first ones to have caved in to their demands?

Hi, Steve Barwick here, for www.TheSilverEdge.com...

According to this news article, Europe is in the grip of a massive superbug crisis that shows no sign of abating.

At the same time, Big Pharma has purposely -- and callously -- cut back on research and development into new antibiotic drugs to combat the superbug crisis.

This has left the nations of the European Union in a life-threatening bind.

EU governments are now being forced to institute programs through which European taxpayers will foot the bill for Big Pharma’s research and development of new antibiotic drugs.

Afterwards, the drug companies will be allowed to sell the drugs they’ve developed on the taxpayer dime for massive profits.

So taxpayers foot the bill both ways.

They pay for the research and development of the new antibiotic drugs through higher taxes, and then they pay for the new "wonder drugs" developed at their expense.

As Andrew Witty, Chief Executive of the drug company GlaxoSmithKline said about the new plan to have taxpayers foot the bill for the development of new antibiotic drugs to fight the superbug crisis:

“The Commission's plans were a welcome step forward that could help bring more antibiotics to market. Unfortunately, the current commercial model doesn't stimulate the innovation needed in this area.

We need a fundamentally different approach and public-private collaboration, with the sharing of information and funding, provides us with a significant opportunity to reduce the hurdles in our way."

Translation:

“Make the taxpayers foot the bill for all of our research and development costs, and we’ll develop some new drugs to help combat the superbug crisis.

Otherwise, you can all eat shit and die if you get a superbug infection because we’re not going to develop any more drugs if we have to pay for the research and development out of our own profits.”

Folks, these big drug companies make hundreds of billions of dollars a year selling drugs at exorbitant prices that cost them only pennies to produce.

And now they want the beleaguered taxpayers to foot the bill for all of their research and development costs for new antibiotic drugs to fight super-pathogens…

…or else they’ll just sit back on their haunches and allow millions of people worldwide to die from superbug infections each year!

Are you beginning to see why the European Union banned the sale of colloidal silver back in 2010?

With no alternative natural means of fighting superbug infections, the taxpayers of the European Union now have no choice but pay Big Pharma billions of dollars annually to develop new antibiotic drugs for them!

Some people say the bankers run the world. But I’ll tell you what: There’s little doubt in my mind Big Pharma is right up there with them.

Coming to America!

And don’t think the same thing won’t happen here.

The very same propaganda campaign used in Europe to force the taxpayers to pay Big Pharma’s research and development costs for new antibiotic drugs is already being implemented here in the U.S., too. In fact, the propaganda campaign for it has been underway since last year.

“We're running out of antibiotic drugs," said Dr. Brad Spellberg of UCLA Medical Center, an infectious disease expert. He says the pharmaceutical companies have stopped making enough antibiotics because it's just “not profitable.”

Indeed, according to the Infectious Disease Society of America, as of 2010 only a mere five of the 13 biggest pharmaceutical companies are still even considering developing new antibiotic drugs.

And according to an article in Newsweek magazine, the drug companies now claim profits are just not high enough to justify the development of new antibiotic drugs, particularly when compared to the money that can be made by developing drugs for chronic, long-term diseases such as cancer, heart disease or even baldness:

“Medications that treat cancer or chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or even baldness are simply much more lucrative [than antibiotic drugs].

That’s because a single course of the most expensive antibiotics (linezolid and daptomycin) runs just seven days and sells for $1,000 to $2,000, while a single course of, say, any given cancer treatment runs for weeks to months and costs from 10 to 20 times as much.

Chronic-disease medications, which a patient typically takes for the rest of his or her life, yield even higher returns. It doesn’t matter that bacterial infections are infinitely more common than cancer or even heart disease; antibiotics are still less profitable…

… The future will almost certainly be different. Antibiotics will cost more and do less. They will also be less readily available than we are accustomed to.”

Ahhh…did they just say ya’ll gonna die because we’re not making enough money off your stupid infections, but if you’ve got cancer, heart disease or are going bald we’ve got you covered with expensive drugs you can take for the rest of your life?

I think you read that right, my friend!

According to the book, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, by Marcia Angell, “Drug companies often decided to stop making important drugs in order to free up capacity for drugs with bigger market potential.”

Translation: It’s not that the antibiotic drugs aren’t profitable to produce. It’s that other drugs are much more profitable. And the drug companies would rather produce the more profitable drugs, even though it means millions of lives will be lost as a consequence of cutting back on the production of the less profitable drugs.

According to an article in Time magazine titled “The Desperate Need for New Antibiotics,” David Payne, head of GlaxoSmithKline's Antibacterial Discovery Performance Unit says “incentives” would certainly help his research team, which is one of the few left in major pharmaceutical firms that continue to develop new classes of antibiotics.

"A lot of people don't appreciate that in big companies it's a pretty competitive environment for funding for each of the therapeutic areas.

Incentives would offer a way for us to accelerate our program and increase our probability of success."

Of course, “incentives” is the new code word for taxpayer funding. Mr. Payne wants the government to provide taxpayer dollars as an “incentive” to develop more antibiotic drugs. Otherwise, the death rate from the superbugs is going to soar.

Why don’t the drug companies simply fund the needed research out of the hundreds of billions of dollars in profits they make each year from the sale of their other prescription drugs?

Well, why should they, when they can simply stop producing new antibiotic drugs until death rates from the super-pathogens skyrocket to the point that the governments of the world are forced to start ponying up taxpayer money to fund the research, instead?

Says a November 2010 article in the New York Times:

“While the notion of directly subsidizing drug companies may be politically unpopular in many quarters, proponents say it is necessary to bridge the gap between the high value that new antibiotics have for society and the low returns they provide to drug companies.”

Fear-based propaganda, my friends, pure and simple!

Indeed, with characteristic disingenuousness, Big Pharma with its hundreds of billions of dollars in annual profits is actually pleading poverty in an effort to goad the government into using taxpayer money to fund the development of new antibiotic drugs…

…which of course the drug companies will make additional billions of dollars in profits from.

What About Colloidal Silver?

Meanwhile, a growing body of largely ignored clinical research demonstrates that a few cents worth of colloidal silver daily, properly administered, will generally cure just about any superbug infection.

In fact, study after study after study after study after study after study after study have demonstrated that silver kills drug-resistant super-pathogens.

This has actually been known since the 1970’s, when Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. of Syracuse Medical University began his pioneering research into the infection-fighting qualities of electrically generated silver ions. At that time, he wrote:

"All of the organisms that we tested were sensitive to the electrically generated silver ion, including some that were resistant to all known antibiotics…In no case were any undesirable side effects of the silver treatment apparent."

-- Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D., Syracuse Medical University

And the simple fact that silver kills antibiotic-resistant microbes has been re-confirmed time after time. As recently stated in a 2010 clinical study published in the World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology:

"Infections caused by drug-resistant microorganisms result in significant increases in mortality, morbidity, and cost related to prolonged treatments.

The antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles against some drug-resistant bacteria has been established…

Hence, we challenged different drug-resistant pathogens of clinical importance (multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ampicillin-resistant Escherichia coli O157:H7 and erythromycin-resistant Streptococcus pyogenes) with a suspension of silver nanoparticles.

By means of a luciferase-based assay, it was determined that silver nanoparticles:

(1) inactivate a panel of drug-resistant and drug-susceptible bacteria (Gram positive and Gram negative),

(2) exert their antibacterial activity through a bactericidal rather than bacteriostatic mechanism, and

(3) inhibit the bacterial growth rate from the time of first contact between the bacteria and the nanoparticles."

-- World J Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 26:615–621

What’s more, studies from BYU have demonstrated that simply adding colloidal silver to an existing prescription antibiotic drug that has lost its effectiveness against the superbugs, increases the efficacy of that drug manifold, and renders it effective against the superbugs once again!

So really, it appears there’s no need to develop new antibiotic drugs to fight the superpathogens. Just add a little bit of colloidal silver to the existing drugs, and they become supercharged!

This too has been repeatedly documented by other researchers. The most recent study was conducted by clinical researchers at the Andalusian Center for Molecular Biology & Regenerative Medicine and University of Seville at Seville, Spain:

“Recently, due to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the use limitations of antibiotics that can cause serious diseases and is an important public health problem (Furuya & Lowy, 2006), the synergetic effect of silver nanoparticles with antibiotics has been studied combinating silver nanoparticles with different antibiotics like ampicillin, kanamycin, erythromycin and chloramphenicol against gram positive and gram negative bacteria.

The antibacterial activities of these antibiotics increase in the presence of silver nanoparticles against gram positive and gram negative bacteria determined by the disk diffusion method.

…The antibiotic molecules contain many active groups such as hydroxyl and amino groups, which reacts easily with silver nanoparticles by chelation, for this reason, the synergistic effect may be caused by the bonding reaction with antibiotic and silver nanoparticles.”

-- Silver Nanoparticles Interactions With the Immune System: Implications for Health and Disease, CABIMER-Andalusian Center for Molecular Biology & Regenerative Medicine

Want more evidence that antimicrobial silver is the clear solution to the growing super-pathogen crisis. Here are just a few insightful articles you might want to read:

· Colloidal Silver Cures CRPK

· Colloidal Silver Cures Pseudomonas

· Colloidal Silver Cures Salmonella

· Colloidal Silver Cures Streptococcus Pyogenes

· Colloidal Silver Cures E. Coli

· Colloidal Silver Curse Listeria

Meanwhile, the drug companies continue to ignore silver-based antimicrobials as the only viable, immediate solution to the ever-growing crisis of super-pathogens.

And why?

Clearly, it’s because they’re not looking for a quick, safe and effective solution to the millions of deaths per year caused by the super-pathogens worldwide.

Instead, they’re pushing the governments of the world to tap deeper into the taxpayer’s pocketbooks to pay for research and development into new classes of antibiotic drugs.

And of course, because the pathogens become resistant to most new drugs within a matter of months or years, the taxpayer-funded research and development of new drugs will be a never-ending source of revenue for Big Pharma.

The bottom line is that when the taxpayers have to foot the bill for the R&D, then new antibiotic drugs will be developed.

And these new drugs will represent billions upon billions of dollars in pure profits for Big Pharma, because they won’t have to pay for their own research and development.

Can You See The Handwriting On the Wall?

What does this tell you?

Well, if you’re intelligent, it should tell you to start stocking up on colloidal silver, because the drug companies are about to use the same blackmail tactic here in the U.S. they just finished using in the EU.

This means the super-pathogen crisis is going to get a lot worse here, first. That’s the leverage the big pharmaceutical companies intend to use to force the government to start providing taxpayer money to fund their research into the development of new antibiotics.

So you’ll want to have plenty of this powerful, infection-fighting elixir available in the interim.

Of course, colloidal silver is costly, with tiny four-ounce bottles going for as much as $30 apiece in health food stores.

Therefore, you might want to consider obtaining a new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator so you can make all of the high-quality colloidal silver you could ever need for just a few pennies per one-quart batch, any time you need it to protect yourself and your family.

To learn how easy it is to start making your own high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver, just click the link above.

Or, check out this link to learn how thousands of experienced colloidal silver users are already curing their own infections with high-quality, homemade micro-particle colloidal silver.

Frankly, making your own high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver the simplest and most effective way in the world to tell Big Pharma where to shove it, while protecting yourself and your family from infection and disease at the same time.

The time has clearly come for people to take their health and well-being into their own hands, and tell the big drug companies to pound sand.

Owning the means of colloidal silver production is one of the most effective ways you can do that.

And if you’re concerned about dosage, you can get a copy by email of the FREE Colloidal Silver Safe Dosage Report at www.ColloidalSilverSafeDosageReport.com.

Yours for the safe, sane and responsible use of colloidal silver,

Steve Barwick, author

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual

Helpful Links:

Join the Colloidal Silver Secrets Community on Facebook

Video: Learn How to Make Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver

Get Your FREE Colloidal Silver “Safe Dosage” Report

.999 Fine Pure Silver Wire for Making Colloidal Silver

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual

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.

What’s the Best Brand of Colloidal Silver?

2011-11-15T15:51:00.000-08:00

Colloidal silver brands come in all shapes and sizes. And each of them tout special bells-and-whistles they claim make them “the best” or “the most effective,” or the “most potent” brand of colloidal silver on the market.

But what’s the truth? How can you cut through the marketing hype and conflicting claims, and find the right brand for yourself and your family? Well, frankly, it’s about as easy, or difficult, as choosing the right laundry detergent. Here’s what I mean…

Hi, Steve Barwick here, for www.TheSilverEdge.com...

If you choose to use a commercial brand of colloidal silver rather than making your own colloidal silver with a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator, you can easily find yourself overwhelmed with choices.

There are literally hundreds of brands of colloidal silver on the market, and therefore literally hundreds of choices.

What’s more, just about every brand of colloidal silver claims to be “the best,” or the “most effective,” or the “only good” form of colloidal silver on the market.

How to wade through all of the conflicting claims?

It’s no different than if you were deciding upon which laundry detergent to use. You have to try a few out until you find the one you like best.

The Marketing Hook

First, keep in mind that just about every colloidal silver vendor uses a marketing "hook." This means they tout some unique feature about their product that differentiates it from all of the other colloidal silver products on the market.

The “hook” is what colloidal silver vendors use to make their product sound different or better than others, so that you’re “hooked” into buying the product.

While some “hooks” are legitimate, many are just pure marketing hype.

For example, some colloidal silver vendors claim their silver is superior because it's composed chiefly of ionic silver. Some claim theirs is superior because it's composed chiefly of particulate or metallic silver.

Some claim theirs is superior because it's “nano-silver.” Some claim theirs is superior because it's infused with oxygen. Some claim theirs is superior because it’s more “electrically active.”

Some claim theirs is superior because it’s infused with a particular electrical frequency in a certain mega-hertz range that is part of the “universal healing code.”

(Honest! At least one colloidal silver vendor actually makes that claim, and another claims to be infused with an even “better” electrical frequency that closely mimics the electrical frequency of human cells! And how’s anyone ever going to prove those claims? Hmmm.)

Other colloidal silver vendors claim their brand is more effective because it’s more highly concentrated. Some even claim theirs is a “unique species” of silver unlike anything the world has ever seen.

While still others claim theirs is more effective because it has a protein coating, or a silver oxide coating, or utilizes a citric acid binder…well, you get the idea, right?

Finally, one colloidal silver vendor even goes so far as to make the laughable claim that all other brands of colloidal silver are largely “ineffective,” and only his is the “real” colloidal silver.

The bottom line is that there are just about as many different claims -- some quite wild and fanciful, and some at least remotely legitimate -- as there are different brands of colloidal silver.

Because of this, I urge readers to look beyond the marketing "hooks" and recognize that it’s not the marketing hook that does the healing. It’s the SILVER that does the healing.

In general, silver does 98% of the healing, and maybe the marketing hook (to the extent it's true) adds another 2% if you’re lucky.

There are, of course, exceptions to that general rule-of-thumb, particularly if you’re comparing a major, privately-manufactured brand of colloidal silver to a brand produced by bulk wholesalers.

In such a case, the difference in quality and effectiveness can be significant, because bulk wholesalers tend to manufacture colloidal silver in a rapid, haphazard manner using only minimal testing and quality control procedures…

…whereas the major private manufacturers of colloidal silver tend to take great care in the manufacture of their product, utilizing extensive testing and keeping numerous quality control procedures in place throughout the entire colloidal silver-making process and afterwards.

So if you stick with the major brands, I think you’ll find my generalization above to be pretty close to the truth.

While all of the major colloidal silver brands have their own marketing “hook” that’s used to differentiate their product from the rest, when push comes to shove they’re generally pretty darned close in quality and effectiveness.

And that’s because SILVER is their foundational ingredient.

Again, this is no different than trying to figure out which major brand of laundry detergent to use. They all contain the very same basic “soap” ingredients. And they all have some extra ingredient they tout, in order to differentiate their product from all of the others.

That’s their marketing “hook.”

But the truth of the matter is this: It’s the basic ingredients in the soap that do the vast majority of the heavy lifting. And those same basic ingredients are in every brand of soap.

Similarly, with colloidal silver it’s the silver that does the healing, and not so much the added bells and whistles, which is to say, the marketing “hook.”

The Best Brand of Colloidal Silver

So if you're looking for the "best" brand of colloidal silver, it's the one that works best for you.

All you can do is try a few brands out over time, and settle on one that works best for your family.

In my opinion, after 16 years of trying different colloidal silver products, Sovereign Silver from Natural-Immunogenics Corp is certainly one of the best of the major commercial brands out there.

Sovereign Silver is widely considered to be the #1 best-selling brand of colloidal silver on the market today – and for very good reason, i.e.,

…it’s not a “bulk” product created in big vats and sold in 55 gallon drums to wholesale distributors who then bottle and re-sell it to dozens of different companies that in turn put their own company brand labels on it as if they were the actual producers of the product.

Instead, Sovereign Silver is manufactured in the company’s own private manufacturing facility, under their direct supervision, to their precise specifications, and batch tested for uniformity and quality control before it’s bottled, labeled and sold to the public.

Sovereign Silver is definitely at the top of my list of the major brands for both quality and effectiveness.

Another good brand is ASAP Solution colloidal silver, which is sold under the Silver Biotics label and several others labels, including Silver Sol.

ASAP is also privately manufactured, and to date has the most impressive clinical testing behind it. The company even has EPA registration and regulation of some of their topical colloidal silver products.

Opti-Silver from Invision International is also a high-quality, privately-manufactured product that’s quite effective. And there are a number of others.

My point here is not to choose your brand of colloidal silver for you. My point is to educate you to the fact that there are many great brands, and that just about any of the major brands will give you a good introduction to colloidal silver usage.

Again, the general rule-of-thumb is this: When you do your research into the various colloidal silver vendors, look for brands that are manufactured in-house, and not purchased in bulk from some unidentified wholesale vendor.

Bulk purchased products are generally the most poorly manufactured, and thus will be the least effective. And unfortunately, they constitute the vast majority of colloidal silver products on the market today.

A good major colloidal silver vendor that manufactures their own product to their own specifications will generally say so on their company web site, whereas a colloidal silver vendor who purchases in bulk from a wholesaler and simply bottles and labels the product as their own will not mention their product’s origin.

It’s the Silver…

In spite of the conflicting claims and bewildering array of marketing “hooks,” all brands of colloidal silver attack pathogens in the same basic ways, i.e.:

electro-chemical discharge of oxygen (i.e., oxidation or “disinfection” of the pathogen from the outside, also called “catalytic oxidation”); this is similar to the way hydrogen peroxide works in that the pathogen is literally destroyed by the oxygen “burst” upon coming into contact with the silver…

blocking cellular “respiration”; in this case, atomic (nascent) oxygen absorbed onto the surface of silver ions in solution will readily react with the sulfhydryl (-S-H) groups surrounding the surface of bacteria or viruses to remove the hydrogen atoms (as water), causing the sulfur atoms to form an R-S-S-R bond; blocking respiration and causing the bacteria to expire from lack of energy…

penetration of the pathogen resulting in disruption of cellular function from the inside out…

and in the case of viral pathogens, disruption of DNA function (i.e., preventing the virus from reproducing itself inside of red blood cells).

What this means is that you have to take all of the claims of superior performance with a grain of salt – some may be true, many are not -- and simply try a few good brands over time until you find the one you really like.

Learning More About Colloidal Silver

To get some ideas of the many different ways colloidal silver can be used, and the many different illnesses and diseases it can help heal, check out the Colloidal Silver Success Stories web site.

This is where hundreds of experienced colloidal silver users have written in and explained exactly what they used colloidal silver for, how they used it and how successful they were.

Another important informational resources on colloidal silver is the Clinical Studies and Reports page on TheSilverEdge.com web site, where you’ll now find dozens of actual medical studies and reports in downloadable PDF format, each demonstrating the powerful infection-fighting qualities of colloidal silver.

And if you’re interested in reading what bona-fide medical and clinical experts have to say about colloidal silver, be sure to check out the What the Experts Say About Colloidal Silver page at TheSilverEdge.com.

This page has hundreds upon hundreds of quotes from modern-day experts as well as from colloidal silver pioneers going all of the way back to the early 1900’s.

And if you’re a real information junkie, then you’ll want to dig through the literally dozens of great articles about colloidal silver usage at this link.

Finally, be sure to join the Colloidal Silver Secrets Community on Facebook, where you’ll find late-breaking news and information on colloidal silver, and where over 1,690 avid colloidal silver users share their favorite ways of using colloidal silver!

Good, Better, Best?

In her hit song, The Best, singer Tina Turner croons, “You’re simply the best, better than all the rest.”

Well, in my view, silver is simply the best all around natural germ fighter in existence.

But which brand of colloidal silver is better than all of the others?

As I’ve stated earlier, my personal favorite commercial brand is Sovereign Silver. But I’ve used most of the major brands at one time or another over the past 17 years…

… And I’ve found them all to be effective. I honestly can’t say I’ve found one major brand to be astonishingly better than any of the other major brands.

The key, in my opinion, is to stick with the major brands that manufacture their own colloidal silver.

If you stick with the major brands you should do alright. And by trying a few of them, you’ll inevitably find one that works best for you.

Regardless of whether you purchase a commercial brand of colloidal silver, or choose to save money by making your own high-quality colloidal silver, you’ll inevitably find colloidal silver to be one of the most beneficial and helpful natural substances you’ve ever used.

Yours for the safe, sane and responsible use of colloidal silver,

Steve Barwick, author

Helpful Links:

Join the Colloidal Silver Secrets Community on Facebook

Video: Learn How to Make Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver

Get Your FREE Colloidal Silver “Safe Dosage” Report

.999 Fine Pure Silver Wire for Making Colloidal Silver

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual

How Junk Science Propaganda Against Colloidal Silver Gets Started

2011-10-26T14:11:00.000-07:00

Will spraying colloidal silver onto your skin, or coming into contact with consumer products containing nanosilver, cause mutations, cancer, birth defects, or nervous system damage?

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.

But 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?

You see, these researchers are trying to create an entire new branch of research called nanotoxicology. And of course, they’re picking on “nanosilver” – today’s hip new scientific term for colloidal silver -- in order to do so. Can you say “huge new source of research grants?”

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.

Oh, Lord!

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.

Propaganda Machine

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.”

In other words, it’s more like the equivalent of the National Enquirer of Iran. I almost expected to see an article like “Iranian Bat Boy Stupefies Scientists!”

(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 –

-- used guinea pigs as the test animals to determine whether or not nanosilver in consumer products might be harmful to skin.

(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?…

…how long was it used for?…

…how was it applied?…

…and finally, how does this extrapolate to human contact with nanosilver?

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?

And still the question remained unanswered: How much nanosilver were the tiny albino guinea pigs actually exposed to using this strange methodology?

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?

The study has no foundation in real-life – yet the researchers draw real-life conclusions from their study and then spread the ominous “nanosilver is dangerous” message across the internet.

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.

Nope.

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.

You had to track down the study in order to find all of that out.

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.

Agenda-Driven Science

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!

Hundreds of thousands of serious burn victims have been treated with silver sulfadiazine, and in many cases have had their lives saved by it.

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...

It's interesting how many of my patients improve with the use of Colloidal Silver. It enhances the immune system whereas antibiotic drugs cause yeast overgrowth...”

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.

In Conclusion…

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 Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technologies…

…for the last 120 years antimicrobial silver has been used in the form of colloidal silver – or what’s now called ‘nanosilver’ – with no significant safety issues whatsoever when used at reasonable, common-sense levels.

In fact, the first known ‘nanosilver’ (i.e., colloidal silver) was produced way back in 1899.

And since that time nanosilver in many forms has been widely used as a disinfectant in swimming pools and spas, and even on the space shuttle…

…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.

The solution:

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.

Sure, they can ban the commercial sales of colloidal silver products. They can even restrict the usage 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.

Helpful Links:

Join the Colloidal Silver Secrets Community on Facebook

Video: Learn How to Make Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver

Get Your FREE Colloidal Silver “Safe Dosage” Report

.999 Fine Pure Silver Wire for Making Colloidal Silver

Join the Colloidal Silver Secrets Community on Facebook

EPA Fines Logitech, Inc. $206,000 for Advertising Antimicrobial Benefits of Nanosilver!

2011-10-24T15:42:00.000-07:00

The EPA has given itself regulatory authority over the use of nanosilver in consumer products, and is now running completely out of control, fining companies hundreds of thousands of dollars for merely mentioning the antimicrobial benefits of nanosilver in their advertising.

Hi, Steve Barwick here, for www.TheSilverEdge.com...

Once again, stupid is as stupid does.

There's not a shred of evidence of any harm -- human or ecological -- from the use of silver nanoparticles in commercial products.

Indeed, recent research has demonstrated that Mother Earth makes her own silver nanoparticles and may well be the most proficient manufacturer of silver nanoparticles, well...on earth.

Indeed, it turns out, according to the latest new study, nature even makes “daughter” silver nanoparticles from “parent” silver nanoparticles –

-- indicating that mankind and the environment itself has been exposed to nature-made silver nanoparticles for millennia, with apparently no harm whatsoever.

So much for the environmental concern.

So now the EPA has switched tactics. Rather than claiming a need to regulate nanosilver over potential environmental harm (which turns out to be largely non-existent)…

…the agency now claims the need to regulate all advertising produced by manufacturers and distributors of consumer products that incorporate nanosilver in their makeup.

Apparently, if the advertising for a product containing nanosilver makes claims for the antimicrobial benefits, the EPA says such claims are automatically “false and misleading” and therefore the company is subject to huge fines –

-- unless they’ve submitted to the EPA’s expensive product registration and testing procedures which can cost millions of dollars!

EPA on the Rampage

The EPA appears to be hell bent on regulating silver-based products out of the marketplace, by claiming their advertising is “false and misleading.”

Only recently, the EPA fined a company called IOGEAR a whopping $208,000.00 for advertising the antimicrobial properties of their silver-impregnated computer mouse and failing to properly register it as a “pesticide” with the agency.

Then the EPA fined a company called Kinetic Solutions, Inc., $82,400 for advertising the antimicrobial benefits of an air purifier they distributed, which contained a pre-filter incorporating nanosilver into its makeup.

The EPA also fined Samsung Corp. $205,000 for advertising the antimicrobial benefits of a computer keyboard infused with silver nanoparticles.

What’s more, according to news reports, when faced with up to $1 million in fines from the EPA, a retail company called The North Face was forced to stop making claims that its nanosilver footwear products protect against germs.

And now, the EPA has leveled a whopping $206,000 fine against the famous computer peripherals company, Logitech, Inc., for incorporating nanosilver into its computer keyboards and advertising the antimicrobial benefits.

Do you understand now why all of those wonderful consumer products infused with antimicrobial silver are slowly disappearing from the marketplace?

Regulatory Muscle-Flexing

The EPA of course is merely flexing its regulatory muscle, reveling in the new authority it has conveyed upon itself to regulate nanosilver as a “pesticide.”

On the one hand, the EPA claims that nanosilver’s powerful antimicrobial qualities make it “pesticidal” in nature, and therefore bring it under the stringent regulatory authority of the agency.

On the other hand, they claim that advertising these very same antimicrobial qualities of nanosilver in consumer products is “false and misleading”!

The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

As usual, the agency is parsing terminology in order to justify its stupid (and I must emphasize, stupid) anti-business actions, which will negatively impact millions of consumers by denying them products that incorporate antimicrobial nanosilver into their makeup.

In this case, the EPA is essentially claiming that just because nanosilver conveys antimicrobial protection to a commercial product such as a computer mouse or keyboard, that protection doesn't automatically carry over to the consumer who uses the product.

Therefore, the EPA claims, if a company makes antimicrobial claims for its product, implying that the consumer will be protected, it constitutes “false and misleading” advertising.

Hmmm. So when people who get flu vaccines end up coming down with the flu afterwards, do they get to sue the Department of Health for hundreds of thousands of dollars for making “false and misleading claims” for the effectiveness of their widely touted flu vaccines?

Well, try it and see how far that gets you.

Or when the EPA regulates air pollution, and you still end up with lung cancer because you live in a particularly smoggy area, do you get to sue the EPA for hundreds of thousands of dollars for making “false and misleading” claims for the effectiveness of their air pollution regulations?

Again, try it and see how far that gets you.

The bottom line is that when companies advertise the antimicrobial benefits of a product that has nanosilver incorporated into its makeup, not one of these companies are promising the public total, 100% protection against infectious microbes.

After all, that would be impossible. Even prescription antibiotic drugs don’t convey 100% protection against microbes. People die of infections every day, even though they’ve been administered prescription antibiotic drugs by their doctors.

Companies that incorporate antimicrobial silver into their consumer products are simply saying there will be a reduction of microbes on the surfaces of those products, thanks to the silver.

In other words, the spread of microbes will be limited due to the presence of antimicrobial nanosilver – which of course, is a very good thing, and people are willing to pay for it.

Yet the EPA acts as if companies that advertise the antimicrobial benefits of nanosilver are purposely misleading consumers, essentially insinuating their customers will never again have to worry about infectious microorganisms.

That’s ludicrous, of course. The EPA is simply re-defining the term “false and misleading claims” in such a way as to include ANY claim about the antimicrobial benefits of nanosilver…

...when those benefits have been widely known and well accepted by science and medicine for millenia.

Out of Control

In short, the EPA is totally out of control.

They’re simply using their new regulatory authority over nanosilver to generate a nice, fat new revenue stream, while working to destroy the market for consumer products that have antimicrobial nanosilver incorporated into their makeup.

The EPA thereby shows itself to be completely self-serving, and not at all acting in the interest of the general public which has clamored for protection against the spread of infectious microorganisms…

…and which business has responded to by providing products that incorporate antimicrobial silver.

The Worst Part…

The worst part is this: Genuinely needed innovations such as nanosilver-impregnated butcher paper, which was developed months ago by researchers in Israel, and which would help limit food poisoning caused by bacterially contaminated meats –

-- will now likely never see the light of day due to the EPA's egregious actions against companies utilizing silver nanoparticles in their products.

With MRSA contamination of our nation’s meat supply now reaching levels as high as 50% in some instances, innovations such as nanosilver-impregnated butcher paper, or nanosilver impregnated food containers are desperately needed.

But thanks to the EPA and their cronies in the anti-silver environmental groups, the likelihood of such innovations making it to the market are just about slim to none. And as the old saying goes, “Slim just left town.”

Incestuous Relationship

Much more needs to be done to expose the incestuous relationship between the EPA and the environmental organizations like Friends of the Earth, Centers for Technology Assessment, and others that use sensationalistic scare tactics regarding nanosilver to frighten the bejabbers out of the general public –

-- in order to help the EPA seize the regulatory authority needed to criminalize the use of this tremendously beneficial and protective substance that could help save many thousands if not millions of lives each year if it were allowed to be more widely used in consumer products.

While the EPA and its cohorts in anti-silver environmental groups (which have taken millions of dollars in funding from charitable foundations associated with Big Pharma) continue to claim that nanosilver is being added to consumer products faster than they can keep up with it…

…the reality is, such products are actually disappearing from store shelves far faster than any new ones are appearing.

That’s because companies are now refusing to bring nanosilver products to market out of fear of being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars by the EPA…

…and, more importantly, out of fear of losing their investments in such products which can run into the tens of millions of dollars just to get a new product off the ground.

(See my related article, “Gloom in the Trend Toward Silver-Based Antimicrobial Products?”)

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that products containing antimicrobial silver are slowly being regulated off the market, thanks to the EPA’s heavy handed actions.

The EPA originally sold the public on its new regulatory authority over antimicrobial silver by claiming they needed to “protect the environment” against harm from nanosilver to tiny, ecologically sensitive microorganisms and other lower life forms.

But when claims of environmental catastrophe due to nanosilver proved to be sensationalistic at best...

…the EPA simply switched gears and seized the authority to regulate all advertising of silver-based products.

They claim it is “false and misleading” to inform the public of the very same antimicrobial qualities the EPA claims makes it a potent “pesticide.”

By regulating advertising, the EPA can make it almost impossible for companies to recoup their investment in developing and bringing to market products that incorporate antimicrobial silver.

After all, if the companies can’t tell the public about the antimicrobial benefits of the silver, what’s the point of investing millions of dollars to bring the products to market?

The whole charade is nothing more than a revenue generating scam for the EPA, being conducted at the expense of the American public.

Thankfully, those of you who have the means to make your own colloidal silver can use it for all of the antimicrobial purposes you want, i.e., everything from disinfecting kitchen cutting boards to adding antimicrobial protection to bathroom toilet seats, faucets and other contact surfaces.

All you have to do is put it into a pump spray bottle and use it as you would any household germicidal disinfectant – the only difference being it is both safe and natural, as well as extremely powerful!

In case you missed it, here’s an article on “20 Top Ways to Use Colloidal Silver Around the House.”

And here’s another article on the “12 Top Ways to Use Colloidal Silver On (and In) Your Body.”

Until the next time, I remain…

Yours for the safe, sane and responsible use of colloidal silver,

Steve Barwick, author
The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual

Helpful Links:

Video: Learn How to Make Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver

Get Your FREE Colloidal Silver “Safe Dosage” Report

.999 Fine Pure Silver Wire for Making Colloidal Silver