Dirty Tricks in the Battle to Save Colloidal Silver from EPA Regulation
Environmentalists take advantage of comments extension deadline to overwhelm EPA comments page with thousands of form letters demanding the regulation of silver particles as “pesticides.”
Well, I warned you that the environmentalist whackos who are petitioning the EPA to regulate "nano-silver" (read: colloidal silver) into oblivion would have to come up with some clever "dirty tricks" in order to win this battle, particularly once they saw that colloidal silver users had unexpectedly rallied against them and had posted nearly 1,000 pro-silver comments on the EPA public comments page.
Before I reveal what kind of dirty tricks they’ve pulled off, let me first give you a little bit of important background information:
Background
When this blog first sounded the alarm in early January about the environmentalist plot to have silver nano-particles regulated as a "pesticide" by the EPA, we revealed that the EPA had already been taking public comments on this issue on their web site for over a month without the knowledge of anyone in the colloidal silver industry.
And during that same time, the rabid environmentalist groups behind the petition were urging their members to post anti-silver comments to the EPA web site, demanding the EPA to implement strict regulations against products containing silver nano-particles, including colloidal silver.
So by the time we first discovered that a plot to regulate silver as a "pesticide" was afoot, the comments were already running ten to one in favor of the petition to have silver nano-particles regulated as “pesticides.”
But with a January 20th deadline for public comments looming, we worked day and night to rally the troops, and managed to cobble together a loose-knit coalition of colloidal silver users, natural health enthusiasts and members of various health freedom organizations to oppose the petition.
And within less than a week our efforts had triggered a massive flood of protests on the EPA web site against the petition to regulate products containing nano-silver as "pesticides." Indeed, the comments on the EPA web site quickly began running just over 100 to one against the petition.
EPA Intervenes
With the January 20th deadline closing in, victory was in sight. Surely, we thought, the EPA would not accept the petition from the rabid environmentalists with such a dramatic public outcry against it.
That's when the EPA stepped in.
Seeing that the tide of public opinion had turned so strongly against the petition, the EPA suddenly acted on an earlier plea by the environmental groups behind the petition to extend the comments deadline by another 60 days, from January 20th to March 20th, in order to give them more time to solicit support for the petition.
Why did the EPA do this? Simple. The EPA is a bureaucracy, like any other: They exist solely to expand their power, regulatory reach and authority. And they had fully expected the petition urging them to more widely regulate products containing silver nano-particles as "pesticides" would give them a broad public mandate to do so.
But when the tide of public opinion turned against the petition, the EPA had to do something about it quickly, or lose their desired public mandate. So they took into consideration the plea from the rabid environmentalists to extend the comments deadline, and then granted it. Dirty
Trick #1: Click and Send Form Letters
The environmental groups quickly realized that their efforts to have silver particles regulated as "pesticides" had been given a second life, so to speak. So they kicked into high gear and fell back on an old tactic of theirs that has given them many victories in the past.
Instead of urging their large membership bases to take the time to draft personal comments and go to the EPA web site and post them, they instead began a campaign of mass-emailings, sending email “blasts” to their entire global membership bases urging them to go to a special web page where they could simply click on a link that automatically signed their name to a form letter supporting the petition to have the EPA regulate silver as a “pesticide.”
In other words, the members of these global environmental groups weren’t even asked to put pen to paper, or sit at a keyboard and write out their comments in support of the petition. Instead, they simply clicked a link that automatically signed their name to a pre-written form letter.
Those form letters then quietly accumulated in the online databases of the environmental groups until they had thousands of them. As a result of this tactic, the global environmental groups have managed to secretly accumulate nearly 6,000 new comments since the original comment deadline of January 20th passed – far more than the colloidal silver community and natural health community have been able to garner.
And they now are in the process of posting this extraordinary new wave of comments to the EPA public comments web page, en masse.
In short, in one short and swift stroke the environmental groups have managed to give the appearance that they have turned the tide of public opinion back strongly in favor of the petition!
This could not have happened, of course, had not the EPA granted the requests for a public comments deadline extension filed by the environmentalist groups.
Now, the EPA can simply look at all of those thousands of new public comments and conclude that they have a “broad public mandate” to begin regulating products containing nano-silver as ‘pesticides’.
Dirty Trick #2: Misinformation and Deception
George Foss, a leading nutritional supplement formulator, and long-time consultant to the nutritional supplement industry, has posted a new comment on the EPA public comments page, protesting the fact that the nearly 6,000 letters submitted by the rabid environmental groups in favor of having the EPA regulate silver nano-particles as “pesticides” are nothing more than mere form letters.
Foss also points out that the information emailed by the environmental groups to their global membership bases asking them to auto-sign the petitions was misleading at best, and grossly deceptive at worst.
In other words, each of these nearly 6,000 form letters in favor of the petition were “signed” based upon misleading information provided by the environmental groups. In fairness, they should therefore be invalidated, or at the very least, their impact on the EPA’s decision-making process should be dramatically minimized.
This won’t happen, of course. As I pointed out earlier, the EPA is a bureaucracy like any other. They exist to expand their power and regulatory reach. And since public support is given so much weight in their decision-making process (like all politicians and bureaucrats, they require public support to justify their actions), there is unfortunately no way they are going to minimize or discount the impact of those nearly 6,000 new letters asking them to regulate products containing nano-silver particles as “pesticides.”
Time permitting, in upcoming blog posts we’ll take a look at some of the specific misinformation the environmental groups have been including in their emails to their membership bases, in order to con them into signing the petition to regulate “silver nano-particles” (read: colloidal silver) as “pesticides.”
We’ll also take a look at some of the hidden financial tie-ins we’ve discovered between the environmental groups and Big Pharma. Yes, the major drug companies are up to their necks in this. You’ll find the information shocking, to say the least. Slowly, the real reason the environmentalists are leading this campaign to have silver particles regulated as “pesticides” is coming to light.
Where Does That Leaves Us?
If there’s any good news in all of this, it’s that with the petition deadline being extended to March 20th, there’s still time to mount a successful counter-attack. We did it once, and we can do it again.
Of course, considering the relatively unorganized, rag-tag nature of the colloidal silver community, and the fact that the environmental groups behind this petition have a vastly larger and more disciplined base of support in their combined global membership, winning the battle at this point is, quite frankly, going to be difficult at best.
I said difficult…but definitely not impossible.
The big mistake the environmentalists made was to have their members sign a pre-written form letter. By doing so, they managed to obtain nearly 6,000 new comments favorable to their petition to have the EPA regulate silver nano-particles as “pesticides.”
On the other hand, the colloidal silver and natural health communities have submitted only about 1,000 comments to the EPA. But almost all of them have been completely original, individually written comments, which should carry far more weight than mere form letters – particularly “click and send” form letters.
So while the environmentalists have indeed vastly surpassed our collective efforts, numerically speaking, we have something going for us that they don’t, i.e., the power of sincerely written personal comments which hopefully carry a lot more weight than mere form letters.
Keep Up the Pressure on FDA…and Expect More Dirty Tricks
Obviously, if we want to keep colloidal silver from being regulated into oblivion by the EPA, we need to keep up the public pressure on them, right up to the new public comments deadline of March 20, 2009.
We absolutely cannot give the EPA even a moment’s rest on this issue. We must let them see that we will not stand by idly while they try to regulate colloidal silver (along with other nanosilver-based products) as a “pesticide,” which would effectively take most colloidal silver produced today off the market.
In about a week or so, I’ll be presenting a new strategy for making our voices heard loudly and clearly on this issue. But I don’t want to tip my hand too early, because it is clear now that the rabid environmental groups are watching every move we make, and using their vast global membership bases to counter our moves.
In the meantime, use the EPA contact information below to contact the EPA and voice your opinion.
IMPORTANT! There is a brand new administrator at the EPA, Obama-appointee Lisa Jackson, who is likely not very familiar with this issue. We need to educate her immediately.
I have provided the phone number to her office below, as well as her email address. So even if you have already taken steps to contact the EPA on this issue in the recent past, please do so again right away.
With a new EPA administrator, we face what is tantamount to a whole new ballgame. But as of today we have only 15 days to bring her up to speed on this issue by letting her know how we feel about the idea of regulating products containing silver nano-particles as "pesticides."
More Dirty Tricks Coming!
Without a doubt you can expect more dirty tricks from these rabid environmentalists in the coming weeks, including the last-minute posting of “studies” demonstrating their contention that silver nano-particles are somehow “harmful” to the environment.
The enviro-nuts will most likely wait until the very last minute to present these studies to the EPA because they know it will not leave time for our side to review and digest them, and provide point-by-point rebuttals or refutations.
The environmental groups have also already cited studies which they claim “prove” silver nano-particles harm humans as well as the animals in the environment.
But of course, what they never disclose is the fact that those studies were done under controlled laboratory conditions that simply don’t exist in the environment. And that in every case, either huge overdoses of silver nano-particles were used, or living cells and tissues were exposed to pure silver nanoparticles in ways that simply could not be duplicated outside of the laboratory, and therefore have no bearing on human or animal real-life experiences with silver.
As you’ve no doubt seen in the news over the past few years, deception is almost an art form within the scientific community these days. Studies are routinely faked in order to gain approval of drugs, or gain funding for additional studies, or for a number of other reasons. So don’t fall for the b.s. when the environmentalists begin releasing it.
What we need to do in the meantime is maintain steady pressure on the EPA. Let them know you are aware of what is going on, and you are not going to put up with it. Tell them in no uncertain terms that you don’t want them to accept the petition to regulate silver nano-particles as “pesticides.”
Also, it has been brought to our attention that over the last few weeks a small handful of members of the environmental groups behind this petition have begun to question why a nutritional supplement like colloidal silver should be regulated as a “pesticide” alongside other products containing nano-silver.
And in response, the environmental groups have begun misleading their members by telling them they are not out to regulate “traditional-silver based products” (without explaining what they mean by that) – this, even though they have listed the top three most popular brands of colloidal silver in the addendum to their petition, along with numerous other colloidal silver brands, claiming they are in need of EPA regulation as “pesticides.” So don’t fall for their dissimulating tactics at this late point in the game.
Enviro-Nuts Want to Regulate ALL Nutritional Supplements
As I mentioned in a previous blog post, these neo-Luddite environmentalists are ultimately out to have all nutritional supplements that contain tiny particles of the active ingredient placed under bureaucratic control, using the “nano-particle” issue as the precedent.
They are already targeting for regulation a variety of other popular nutritional supplements just because they contain tiny particles of the active ingredient that allow for better absorption by the human body, and thus work better. (It is getting clearer and clearer that Big Pharma is behind this campaign.)
If you think I’m kidding, go to this web page and read the article entitled “Nanoparticles In Dietary Supplements Cause Health Concerns, Regulatory Challenges.”Or go to this web page and read the article titled, “Questioning the Safety Of Nanotechnology In Your Vitamins.”
Yes, the enviro-nuts are anticipating victory in the battle to regulate colloidal silver, and have already started the propaganda war against other nutritional supplements.
Why? Because in their warped minds, if tiny particles of silver are dangerous, so are tiny particles of any other active ingredient.
The bottom line is that we have to stop them here and now. We can’t let them start regulating colloidal silver as a “pesticide,” or they will have set the precedent to regulate every other nutritional supplement on planet earth into oblivion – especially since we already know they will simply re-define the term “nano” until it covers every product ingredient imaginable.
Alert Friends, Family, Co-Workers!
So be sure to alert your friends, family members and co-workers who might also be natural health enthusiasts. Explain to them that once the environmentalists have set the precedent against colloidal silver, they intend to come after all nutritional supplements, using the “nano-particle” issue to put supplements firmly under bureaucratic regulation.
Get your friends, family members and co-workers to follow through with you and take one or more of the simple, below-described actions to help stop the EPA from regulating silver as a “pesticide.”
Once again, here are five simple yet highly effective steps you need to take right away:
Post Your Comments: Go to the brand new EPA public comments page at this link (click here) and post your comments directly to the EPA web site. Explain why you do not want the EPA to regulate silver nanoparticles as “pesticides,” which would result in a de facto ban on all products containing silver nano-particles, including colloidal silver.
Email Your Comments: Email your comments opposing the petition to regulate silver particles as “pesticides” to the new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Her email address is: jackson.lisa@epa.gov
Phone the EPA Administrator's Office: To call the EPA Administrator's office and voice your opinion on this issue, dial (202)-564-4700
Environmentalists take advantage of comments extension deadline to overwhelm EPA comments page with thousands of form letters demanding the regulation of silver particles as “pesticides.”
Well, I warned you that the environmentalist whackos who are petitioning the EPA to regulate "nano-silver" (read: colloidal silver) into oblivion would have to come up with some clever "dirty tricks" in order to win this battle, particularly once they saw that colloidal silver users had unexpectedly rallied against them and had posted nearly 1,000 pro-silver comments on the EPA public comments page.
Before I reveal what kind of dirty tricks they’ve pulled off, let me first give you a little bit of important background information:
Background
When this blog first sounded the alarm in early January about the environmentalist plot to have silver nano-particles regulated as a "pesticide" by the EPA, we revealed that the EPA had already been taking public comments on this issue on their web site for over a month without the knowledge of anyone in the colloidal silver industry.
And during that same time, the rabid environmentalist groups behind the petition were urging their members to post anti-silver comments to the EPA web site, demanding the EPA to implement strict regulations against products containing silver nano-particles, including colloidal silver.
So by the time we first discovered that a plot to regulate silver as a "pesticide" was afoot, the comments were already running ten to one in favor of the petition to have silver nano-particles regulated as “pesticides.”
But with a January 20th deadline for public comments looming, we worked day and night to rally the troops, and managed to cobble together a loose-knit coalition of colloidal silver users, natural health enthusiasts and members of various health freedom organizations to oppose the petition.
And within less than a week our efforts had triggered a massive flood of protests on the EPA web site against the petition to regulate products containing nano-silver as "pesticides." Indeed, the comments on the EPA web site quickly began running just over 100 to one against the petition.
EPA Intervenes
With the January 20th deadline closing in, victory was in sight. Surely, we thought, the EPA would not accept the petition from the rabid environmentalists with such a dramatic public outcry against it.
That's when the EPA stepped in.
Seeing that the tide of public opinion had turned so strongly against the petition, the EPA suddenly acted on an earlier plea by the environmental groups behind the petition to extend the comments deadline by another 60 days, from January 20th to March 20th, in order to give them more time to solicit support for the petition.
Why did the EPA do this? Simple. The EPA is a bureaucracy, like any other: They exist solely to expand their power, regulatory reach and authority. And they had fully expected the petition urging them to more widely regulate products containing silver nano-particles as "pesticides" would give them a broad public mandate to do so.
But when the tide of public opinion turned against the petition, the EPA had to do something about it quickly, or lose their desired public mandate. So they took into consideration the plea from the rabid environmentalists to extend the comments deadline, and then granted it. Dirty
Trick #1: Click and Send Form Letters
The environmental groups quickly realized that their efforts to have silver particles regulated as "pesticides" had been given a second life, so to speak. So they kicked into high gear and fell back on an old tactic of theirs that has given them many victories in the past.
Instead of urging their large membership bases to take the time to draft personal comments and go to the EPA web site and post them, they instead began a campaign of mass-emailings, sending email “blasts” to their entire global membership bases urging them to go to a special web page where they could simply click on a link that automatically signed their name to a form letter supporting the petition to have the EPA regulate silver as a “pesticide.”
In other words, the members of these global environmental groups weren’t even asked to put pen to paper, or sit at a keyboard and write out their comments in support of the petition. Instead, they simply clicked a link that automatically signed their name to a pre-written form letter.
Those form letters then quietly accumulated in the online databases of the environmental groups until they had thousands of them. As a result of this tactic, the global environmental groups have managed to secretly accumulate nearly 6,000 new comments since the original comment deadline of January 20th passed – far more than the colloidal silver community and natural health community have been able to garner.
And they now are in the process of posting this extraordinary new wave of comments to the EPA public comments web page, en masse.
In short, in one short and swift stroke the environmental groups have managed to give the appearance that they have turned the tide of public opinion back strongly in favor of the petition!
This could not have happened, of course, had not the EPA granted the requests for a public comments deadline extension filed by the environmentalist groups.
Now, the EPA can simply look at all of those thousands of new public comments and conclude that they have a “broad public mandate” to begin regulating products containing nano-silver as ‘pesticides’.
Dirty Trick #2: Misinformation and Deception
George Foss, a leading nutritional supplement formulator, and long-time consultant to the nutritional supplement industry, has posted a new comment on the EPA public comments page, protesting the fact that the nearly 6,000 letters submitted by the rabid environmental groups in favor of having the EPA regulate silver nano-particles as “pesticides” are nothing more than mere form letters.
Foss also points out that the information emailed by the environmental groups to their global membership bases asking them to auto-sign the petitions was misleading at best, and grossly deceptive at worst.
In other words, each of these nearly 6,000 form letters in favor of the petition were “signed” based upon misleading information provided by the environmental groups. In fairness, they should therefore be invalidated, or at the very least, their impact on the EPA’s decision-making process should be dramatically minimized.
This won’t happen, of course. As I pointed out earlier, the EPA is a bureaucracy like any other. They exist to expand their power and regulatory reach. And since public support is given so much weight in their decision-making process (like all politicians and bureaucrats, they require public support to justify their actions), there is unfortunately no way they are going to minimize or discount the impact of those nearly 6,000 new letters asking them to regulate products containing nano-silver particles as “pesticides.”
Time permitting, in upcoming blog posts we’ll take a look at some of the specific misinformation the environmental groups have been including in their emails to their membership bases, in order to con them into signing the petition to regulate “silver nano-particles” (read: colloidal silver) as “pesticides.”
We’ll also take a look at some of the hidden financial tie-ins we’ve discovered between the environmental groups and Big Pharma. Yes, the major drug companies are up to their necks in this. You’ll find the information shocking, to say the least. Slowly, the real reason the environmentalists are leading this campaign to have silver particles regulated as “pesticides” is coming to light.
Where Does That Leaves Us?
If there’s any good news in all of this, it’s that with the petition deadline being extended to March 20th, there’s still time to mount a successful counter-attack. We did it once, and we can do it again.
Of course, considering the relatively unorganized, rag-tag nature of the colloidal silver community, and the fact that the environmental groups behind this petition have a vastly larger and more disciplined base of support in their combined global membership, winning the battle at this point is, quite frankly, going to be difficult at best.
I said difficult…but definitely not impossible.
The big mistake the environmentalists made was to have their members sign a pre-written form letter. By doing so, they managed to obtain nearly 6,000 new comments favorable to their petition to have the EPA regulate silver nano-particles as “pesticides.”
On the other hand, the colloidal silver and natural health communities have submitted only about 1,000 comments to the EPA. But almost all of them have been completely original, individually written comments, which should carry far more weight than mere form letters – particularly “click and send” form letters.
So while the environmentalists have indeed vastly surpassed our collective efforts, numerically speaking, we have something going for us that they don’t, i.e., the power of sincerely written personal comments which hopefully carry a lot more weight than mere form letters.
Keep Up the Pressure on FDA…and Expect More Dirty Tricks
Obviously, if we want to keep colloidal silver from being regulated into oblivion by the EPA, we need to keep up the public pressure on them, right up to the new public comments deadline of March 20, 2009.
We absolutely cannot give the EPA even a moment’s rest on this issue. We must let them see that we will not stand by idly while they try to regulate colloidal silver (along with other nanosilver-based products) as a “pesticide,” which would effectively take most colloidal silver produced today off the market.
In about a week or so, I’ll be presenting a new strategy for making our voices heard loudly and clearly on this issue. But I don’t want to tip my hand too early, because it is clear now that the rabid environmental groups are watching every move we make, and using their vast global membership bases to counter our moves.
In the meantime, use the EPA contact information below to contact the EPA and voice your opinion.
IMPORTANT! There is a brand new administrator at the EPA, Obama-appointee Lisa Jackson, who is likely not very familiar with this issue. We need to educate her immediately.
I have provided the phone number to her office below, as well as her email address. So even if you have already taken steps to contact the EPA on this issue in the recent past, please do so again right away.
With a new EPA administrator, we face what is tantamount to a whole new ballgame. But as of today we have only 15 days to bring her up to speed on this issue by letting her know how we feel about the idea of regulating products containing silver nano-particles as "pesticides."
More Dirty Tricks Coming!
Without a doubt you can expect more dirty tricks from these rabid environmentalists in the coming weeks, including the last-minute posting of “studies” demonstrating their contention that silver nano-particles are somehow “harmful” to the environment.
The enviro-nuts will most likely wait until the very last minute to present these studies to the EPA because they know it will not leave time for our side to review and digest them, and provide point-by-point rebuttals or refutations.
The environmental groups have also already cited studies which they claim “prove” silver nano-particles harm humans as well as the animals in the environment.
But of course, what they never disclose is the fact that those studies were done under controlled laboratory conditions that simply don’t exist in the environment. And that in every case, either huge overdoses of silver nano-particles were used, or living cells and tissues were exposed to pure silver nanoparticles in ways that simply could not be duplicated outside of the laboratory, and therefore have no bearing on human or animal real-life experiences with silver.
As you’ve no doubt seen in the news over the past few years, deception is almost an art form within the scientific community these days. Studies are routinely faked in order to gain approval of drugs, or gain funding for additional studies, or for a number of other reasons. So don’t fall for the b.s. when the environmentalists begin releasing it.
What we need to do in the meantime is maintain steady pressure on the EPA. Let them know you are aware of what is going on, and you are not going to put up with it. Tell them in no uncertain terms that you don’t want them to accept the petition to regulate silver nano-particles as “pesticides.”
Also, it has been brought to our attention that over the last few weeks a small handful of members of the environmental groups behind this petition have begun to question why a nutritional supplement like colloidal silver should be regulated as a “pesticide” alongside other products containing nano-silver.
And in response, the environmental groups have begun misleading their members by telling them they are not out to regulate “traditional-silver based products” (without explaining what they mean by that) – this, even though they have listed the top three most popular brands of colloidal silver in the addendum to their petition, along with numerous other colloidal silver brands, claiming they are in need of EPA regulation as “pesticides.” So don’t fall for their dissimulating tactics at this late point in the game.
Enviro-Nuts Want to Regulate ALL Nutritional Supplements
As I mentioned in a previous blog post, these neo-Luddite environmentalists are ultimately out to have all nutritional supplements that contain tiny particles of the active ingredient placed under bureaucratic control, using the “nano-particle” issue as the precedent.
They are already targeting for regulation a variety of other popular nutritional supplements just because they contain tiny particles of the active ingredient that allow for better absorption by the human body, and thus work better. (It is getting clearer and clearer that Big Pharma is behind this campaign.)
If you think I’m kidding, go to this web page and read the article entitled “Nanoparticles In Dietary Supplements Cause Health Concerns, Regulatory Challenges.”Or go to this web page and read the article titled, “Questioning the Safety Of Nanotechnology In Your Vitamins.”
Yes, the enviro-nuts are anticipating victory in the battle to regulate colloidal silver, and have already started the propaganda war against other nutritional supplements.
Why? Because in their warped minds, if tiny particles of silver are dangerous, so are tiny particles of any other active ingredient.
The bottom line is that we have to stop them here and now. We can’t let them start regulating colloidal silver as a “pesticide,” or they will have set the precedent to regulate every other nutritional supplement on planet earth into oblivion – especially since we already know they will simply re-define the term “nano” until it covers every product ingredient imaginable.
Alert Friends, Family, Co-Workers!
So be sure to alert your friends, family members and co-workers who might also be natural health enthusiasts. Explain to them that once the environmentalists have set the precedent against colloidal silver, they intend to come after all nutritional supplements, using the “nano-particle” issue to put supplements firmly under bureaucratic regulation.
Get your friends, family members and co-workers to follow through with you and take one or more of the simple, below-described actions to help stop the EPA from regulating silver as a “pesticide.”
Once again, here are five simple yet highly effective steps you need to take right away:
Post Your Comments: Go to the brand new EPA public comments page at this link (click here) and post your comments directly to the EPA web site. Explain why you do not want the EPA to regulate silver nanoparticles as “pesticides,” which would result in a de facto ban on all products containing silver nano-particles, including colloidal silver.
Email Your Comments: Email your comments opposing the petition to regulate silver particles as “pesticides” to the new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Her email address is: jackson.lisa@epa.gov
Phone the EPA Administrator's Office: To call the EPA Administrator's office and voice your opinion on this issue, dial (202)-564-4700
Fax Your Comments: Fax your comments to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, at her Washington DC fax number: (202)-501-1450.
Write a Personal Letter: Send a personal letter to the Washington DC office of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Her address is as follows:
Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) RegulatoryPublic Docket (7502P)
ATTN: Administrator Lisa Jackson
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001
Personal letters and phone calls have more impact than any other method of communication with bureaucrats. So if you have the extra time, print out your comments, stick them in an envelope, and mail them to the EPA administrator at the address above. And most certainly call the new EPA administrator's office and let them know that you are opposed to the "Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver Products as Pesticides."
Important Note: All comments to the EPA – whether you make them by calling, emailing, faxing, snail mailing or through the public comments section of their web site -- must reference the “Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver Products as Pesticides,” and must also reference the new Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650-0506. That way they know exactly what you are talking about.
We can't let the rabid environmental groups win this battle. If we do, colloidal silver will be regulated into oblivion, and the stage will have been set for the regulation of all other nutritional supplements containing tiny particles of the active ingredient.
So if you've not yet taken any of the four steps spelled out above, be sure to do so right away. And if you've already done one or two of them, do the rest. It is absolutely essential that we keep up the pressure on the EPA all of the way to the comments extension deadline of March 20th.
Regards,
S. Spencer Jones
P.S. One permanent and highly effective personal solution to this pending encroachment of your health freedom is to obtain a high-quality colloidal silver generator, so that you own the means of colloidal silver production, and are in no way dependent upon the whims of bureaucrats for access to colloidal silver.
We strongly recommend the brand new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from our good friends at http://www.thesilveredge.com/.
This bona-fide breakthrough in colloidal silver-making technology allows you to produce high-quality colloidal silver solutions containing silver particles as low as .0008 microns, which is a mere fraction of a single micron in size.
What’s more, with a new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator you can produce high-quality colloidal silver for less than 36 cents a quart, which is about as close as you’ll ever come to having FREE colloidal silver for the rest of your life.
Indeed, when you consider the fact that commercial brands of colloidal silver now sell for anywhere from $15 to $30 for a tiny four-ounce bottle, you can easily see that your first one or two quart-sized batches of micro-particle colloidal silver will fully pay for the entire cost of your new generator. In other words, the unit pays for itself almost immediately!
So do consider the situation at hand, and act quickly and decisively. The EPA is already demanding that devices that produce silver particles be brought under their regulatory umbrella as “pesticide producing devices” (see The Coming Ban on Colloidal Silver Generators to learn more).
So if you are interested in owning the means of colloidal silver production and thereby freeing yourself from encroaching bureaucratic intervention in the colloidal silver marketplace, it is absolutely vital that you act right away, before they ban the little colloidal silver generators, too.
Go to http://www.thesilveredge.com/ today, and learn more about making your own high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver in the comfort and privacy of your own home.
Important Links:
Posts
2 comments:
I just bought the micro particle generator and I am also an environmentalist. I would like to know which "rabid" groups you refer to and if they are any that I belong to I would very much like to educate them so they become part of our movement rather than an enemy. Please advise so I can get started right away. Remember Honey not vinegar. We all live in the same world and the environmental groups are only looking to make it a better place. Let's get them educated instead of making them enemies. Look how many of 'us' there are and if we can get a large enough percentage to come over to our way of understanding Silver than we can beat the FDA.
Judy
Hi Judy,
First of all, it is the EPA that is attempting to hijack regulatory oversight of colloidal silver here, by claiming it is a “pesticide.” Not the FDA.
Secondly, the environmental groups I’m referring to are listed in my latest blog post, titled Big Drug Companies Fund Groups Behind Plot to Regulate Nano-Silver. You can read the list of environmental groups in that post at www.ColloidalSilverSecrets.blogspot.com
When I say “rabid environmentalists” I am speaking of the bureaucratic hierarchy of these environmental groups that want to micro-manage every aspect of people’s lives in the name of “environmentalism.” I am not speaking of the sincere members of these groups who believe, as I do, that we have an obligation to preserve nature.
If you check the blog for my latest blog post, titled Big Drug Companies Fund Groups Behind Plot to Regulate Nano-Silver, you’ll see that the environmental groups have for years been taking huge “contributions” from big drug companies like Merck (Vioxx scandal; Gardasil vaccine scandal) and Pfizer (Bextra scandal; numerous other scandals). These drug companies are directly responsible for the fact that 46 million Americans now have a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs in their drinking water. But rather than investigating these drug companies, the environmental groups behind the plot to regulate silver as a “pesticide” are taking millions of dollars in donations from them.
As I stated in Saturday’s blog post, “The fact that the environmental groups basically ignore a real problem (potentially dangerous drugs in the drinking water of 46 million U.S. homes) in order to focus so heavily on a fabricated problem (tiny particles off silver going back into the environment they originally came from) pretty much tells you who they are working for.
You are not going to convince them of anything. It is all about the money. Sorry to disillusion you. But it’s the truth.
Regards,
Steve
Post a Comment