Friday, October 30, 2009

Colloidal Silver Dosage -- FREE Report

Many people have asked me how much colloidal silver can be taken daily, for nutritional supplement purposes.

Fortunately, our good friends at The Silver Edge have posted a 16-page Colloidal Silver “Safe Dosage” Report on their web site – and they’re giving it away FREE.

All you have to do is go to their web site at and download it.

You’ll see the download link in the upper left-hand corner of the web site.

The FREE 16-page Colloidal Silver “Safe Dosage” Report explains how to calculate your maximum daily safe dosage of colloidal silver, based upon your own body weight. It’s quick, simple and easy to do. And it’s based upon the EPA’s own maximum safe daily intake level estimates.

In other words, it’s based upon the amount of silver the EPA estimates you can ingest daily for the rest of your life without causing any harmful buildup of silver in the human body.

The FREE “Safe Dosage” report does not cover individual dosages for specific infections or diseases. It only discusses how to determine the dosage you’d use if you simply wanted to take colloidal silver daily, for nutritional supplement purposes, for the rest of your life.

To learn about dosages for infections or specific diseases, you might want to consider getting a copy of the newly updated, 547-page Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual published by Life & Health Research Group, LLC. The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual features over 40 chapters on colloidal silver and its usage, including several in-depth chapters on diseases and dosages.

Helpful Links:

Colloidal Silver Kills Viruses

Colloidal Silver Cures MRSA

The Immune Manual

Make your own colloidal silver

The Colloidal Silver Secrets Video

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual

The New Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator

Colloidal Silver Secrets blog

Secrets of Natural Healing blog

The Authoritative Guide to Vaccine Legal Exemptions

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Act Quickly -- Tell the EPA to Keep Their Hands Off Colloidal Silver

A new EPA meeting on nanosilver is coming up. But EPA’s requested comment period has already passed. However…you should send your comments in anyway! Here’s why…

I’ve just found out that the EPA is going to have a 4-day “consultation meeting” of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, on the topic of regulating nanosilver, starting November 3 and running through November 6.

The specific purpose of the meeting, according to the EPA press release that was just brought to my attention, is to “review a set of scientific issues related to the assessment of hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.

In other words, the EPA appears to be moving forward on the formulation of plans to regulate the use of products containing nanosilver for “pesticidal” purposes.

How FIFRA Regs Could Cover Colloidal Silver Products

If you’ve followed this blog for any length of time, you no doubt know that the EPA has essentially ruled that bacteria, fungi and other microbes are now classified as “pests” under their newly revised FIFRA (i.e., Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) regulations.

And you likely also know that “nanosilver” (i.e., extremely tiny particles of silver), when used for anti-microbial purposes, has now been classified under the FIFRA regulations as a “pesticidal” product.

These revisions to the FIFRA regulations, of course, were specifically designed to give EPA authority to regulate all products containing nanosilver.

Many observers sounded the alarm last year after EPA first ruled that nanosilver had been classified under FIFRA as a “pesticidal” product, warning that this new classification could have extremely detrimental consequences for the colloidal silver community.

But it wasn’t until January of this year that the colloidal silver community finally sat up and took notice. This, after a consortium of extremist environmental groups including the Center for Technology Assessment and Friends of the Earth filed a legal petition to force the EPA to stringently enforce FIFRA regulations against all products containing nanosilver, including colloidal silver products, if those products made “pesticidal” claims.

Does Your Favorite Brand of Colloidal Silver Contain Nanosilver and Make “Pesticidal” Claims?

In other words, if your favorite brand of colloidal silver contains tiny nano-sized silver particles (most brands do), and if it is used chiefly for its powerful antimicrobial qualities (most brands are), then according to the environmental groups, your favorite brand of colloidal silver should be interpreted to be a “perticidal” product under FIFRA, and would have to meet the EPA’s stringent regulations for pesticidal products.

What’s more, these extremist environmental groups apparently want the EPA to force nanosilver product manufacturers to remove their products from the market and prove to the EPA that these products cannot “harm the environment” before they can once again be sold to the public.

This of course means colloidal silver manufacturers along with the manufacturers of other products containing nano-sized particles of silver would have to file expensive environmental impact reports with the EPA, costing hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

Backdoor Method of Banning Colloidal Silver

Ever since the environmental groups first filed their legal petition with the EPA in late 2008, many thousands of colloidal silver users have protested to the EPA that the entire scheme smacked of a backdoor method of regulating colloidal silver into oblivion.

After all, few if any colloidal silver manufacturers could afford to comply with the added regulatory burden of having to prove to the EPA that their products won’t “harm the environment.” If the environmentalists had their way, and these types of regulations were instituted, most colloidal silver manufacturers would simply have to quit manufacturing their products.

Of course, forcing colloidal silver manufacturers to prove that their products won’t harm the environment is ludicrous at face value. Why? Because silver comes from the environment in the first place. And secondly, because there is no evidence whatsoever that commercial colloidal silver products have ever caused even a scintilla of harm to the environment.

For these reasons, and many more (including questionable “charitable contributions” to the environmental groups from foundations linked to Big Pharma) colloidal silver manufacturers, vendors and users have been extremely suspicious of EPA’s intentions in classifying nanosilver as a “pesticidal” product under their FIFRA regulations, and of the role of the environmental groups such as Center for Technology Assessment and Friends of the Earth in acting in attempting to force EPA to more stringently regulate products containing nanosilver.

(As an aside, you may remember that only this past June, the environmental group Friends of the Earth issued a white paper calling on the EPA to ban all colloidal silver products.)

Emergency Action Needed Immediately!

The bottom line is that the upcoming November 3-6 meeting of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel represents both crisis and opportunity for colloidal silver manufacturers, vendors and users.

Crisis, in that you can rest assured representatives of the major anti-nanosilver environmental groups will be in attendance, and will be pressing the EPA to adopt their radical anti-silver regulatory agenda.

And a very slim window of opportunity, in that the EPA has once again requested public comments on this critical issue, both in the form of written comments from the public at large, and well as oral comments from those who might be able to attend the FIFRA meeting in Arlington VA.

Written Public Comments Need to Be Submitted Quickly

Let’s deal with the written comments first:

Unfortunately, the EPA has requested that all written comments on this issue be submitted by October 20, 2009. This date has already passed. We were not made aware of it until it was already too late.

However, here’s what the EPA stated regarding written comments in their undated press release announcing the meeting:

“The agency encourages that written comments be submitted by October 20, 2009…”

In other words, it is apparently not a hard-and-fast deadline. Obviously, comments need to get to the EPA well before the FIFRA meeting which starts on November 3 and runs through Nov. 6. So the quicker you act, the more likely your comments will make an impact at the November 3-6 FIFRA meeting.

With that in mind, I strongly urge all colloidal silver users to immediately post a brief comment on the EPA Federal eRulemaking Portal at this web address:

Simply click on the above link, or type it into your web site address bar. Once the page comes up type the following docket # (i.e., EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0683) into the bar that says “Enter Keyword or ID”, and then click on “Submit a Comment.”

Once that page comes up, scroll to the bottom right side and look for the “Actions” column. In that column click on the link titled “Submit a Comment.” That should bring up the public comments page, in which you can write and submit your comment.

[If you’re really lucky, you might be able to bypass the above rigamarole and go straight to the public comments page by clicking this link. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. The EPA doesn’t make it easy to figure out how to post public comments on their web site. I’m doing the best I can to get you there! -- Spencer]

Once you’ve reached the comments page, in your own words, simply say something to the effect of this:

In regards to docket ID #EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0683, I respectfully request that you do NOT lump colloidal silver products containing nanosilver in with other commercial nanosilver products you may be considering regulating under FIFRA.

Colloidal silver is an oral nutritional supplement product, and as such is already regulated under the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.

Despite assertions to the contrary by environmental groups such as Center for Technology Assessment and Friends of the Earth, oral colloidal silver nutritional supplements containing nanosilver have never been demonstrated to pose any threat to the environment whatsoever.

Additional regulation by the EPA of a product already amply regulated by the FDA would be redundant at best. It is also an affront to taxpayers, particularly considering the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of environmental harm from these nutritional supplement products.

What’s more, regulating colloidal silver products under FIFRA further unnecessarily stretches thin the EPA’s already overburdened regulatory mechanisms.

Please say “No” to regulating colloidal silver nutritional supplement products under FIFRA, and in fact, please take steps to fully exempt colloidal silver nutritional supplement products from FIFRA regulation.

Thank you,

(your name)

If you don’t want to take the time to write it in your own words, simply highlight and copy the above comment and paste it into the comments section on the EPA web site as directed above.

But I strongly suggest you write the letter in your own words. Your comment doesn’t have to be a long one. Just let the EPA know in no uncertain terms that you don’t want the EPA to regulate colloidal silver products under their FIFRA “pesticide” regulations.

[If by the time you get this notice the EPA public comments page for this particular issue is no longer working, simply print out and mail your comment to the following address as quickly as possible: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.]

Attending the Meeting and Delivering Oral Comments

If you’re a colloidal silver manufacturer or vendor, or just an articulate advocate of colloidal silver, you might want to consider attending the upcoming November 3-6 meeting of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel to be held in Arlington, VA, and delivering oral comments to the panel.

But be aware: You must request in writing to deliver oral comments at the meeting. And the deadline for requesting to deliver oral comments at the meeting is October 27th.

That gives you less than a week from the date of this blog post to get your request to the EPA.

If you’re interested in doing so, I suggest drafting your request to deliver oral comments immediately, and then post it to the EPA public comments page. Or better still, Federal Express your request to the following EPA address: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

You can always follow up with the EPA representative whose contact information appears directly below in the reproduction of the EPA press release we just received.

The Original EPA Press Release

Directly below I have reproduced the press release from the EPA regarding this meeting. It gives the address to send your written comments to, as well as to send a request to deliver oral comments at the meeting if you can attend in person.

Here it is:

There will be a 4-day consultation meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review a set of scientific issues related to the assessment of hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.

DATES: The consultation meeting will be held on November 3 - 6, 2009, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The consultation meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

Comments: The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted by October 20, 2009 and requests for oral comments be submitted by October 27, 2009.

Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0683, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Mail to: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph E. Bailey, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-2045; fax number: (202) 564-8382; e-mail address:

EPA source:


The fact that the EPA is apparently moving forward on their agenda to regulate nanosilver products simply heightens my long-time recommendation that every family should own the means of colloidal silver production.

By that, I mean you should own a high-quality colloidal silver generator, such as the new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from our good friends at The Silver Edge.

Once you own the means of colloidal silver production, no one can take away your right to use colloidal silver whenever you want to.

What’s more, by owning a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge, you’ll be able to make all of the high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver you could ever want, for the extraordinarily low cost of about 36 cents a quart.

Yes, I said 36 cents a quart!

Compare that with the $20 to $30 price tag on a tiny 4 ounce bottle of colloidal silver at most health food stores, and you’ll see that with a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge, you can literally afford to bathe in colloidal silver if you want.

In fact, many Micro-Particle Generator owners report to us that they do just that. Once a week or so, they pour a quart jar of colloidal silver directly into their bathwater, and enjoy the soothing, healing effect colloidal silver has on the skin. After all, when you are only paying 36 cents a quart to make high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver, your uses for this phenomenal healing product are virtually unlimited.

What’s more, the set of pure .999 fine silver wire that comes with your new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator will allow you to make over $24,000 worth of high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver in the comfort and privacy of your own home!

And you can purchase additional sets of the pure silver wire for only about $25 apiece (each set lasts about a year under normal usage). And yes, each set allows you to make another $24,000 worth of high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver.

I know this all sounds astonishing, to say the least. But every word of it is absolutely true.

Perhaps the best part is that your very first one-quart batch of high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver literally pays for the entire cost of your new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator, when compared to the price you would have paid for the same amount of colloidal silver in a health food store. Just do the math…it’s absolutely amazing!

So I urge you to pay a visit to The Silver Edge at and click through on the links, paying particular attention to the link titled “How to Make High-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver for Less Than 36 Cents a Quart!” and the link titled “Make $24,000 Worth of Colloidal Silver from a $20 Set of Silver Wire.”

See for yourself that what I’m telling you is true.

Then, order a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge, before the environmental groups and the EPA finally have their way, and begin regulating commercial colloidal silver products into oblivion.

Once you own the means of colloidal silver production, you’ll be able to make all of the colloidal silver you could ever want, any time you want, in the comfort and privacy of your own home. And the good news is, as long as you act before they institute new regulations, there’s not a thing the environmentalists or the bureaucrats can do about it.

Helpful Links:

Make your own high-quality colloidal silver:

Learn more about colloidal silver:

The Colloidal Silver Secrets Video:

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual:

Colloidal Silver Cures MRSA:

Colloidal Silver Kills Viruses:

The New Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator:

The Colloidal Silver Secrets blog:

The Secrets of Natural Healing blog:

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Colloidal Silver War Heats Up As Enviro Group Bullies Reporter; Denies Drug Company Funding Links

Enviro group spokesman threatens investigative reporter Tony Isaacs for revealing drug company funding links...

In a recent twist in the battle between environmental groups and colloidal silver users, a spokesman for the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) has not-so-subtly threatened to sue investigative reporter Tony Isaacs over his articles in which he reported finding funding links between charitable foundations associated with major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer, and environmental groups directly associated with the petition to force the EPA to regulate silver-based products, including some of the leading brands of colloidal silver.

Tony's articles have appeared here on this blog, as well as at and other online news venues.

I certainly don't speak for Tony Isaacs. But in my view, the implication of Tony's findings is that the environmental groups have been unduly influenced -- wittingly or unwittingly -- by the relatively huge contributions they've received from these foundations.

And what they've been influenced into doing -- wittingly or unwittingly -- is the bidding of Big Pharma in its seemingly unending drive to regulate colloidal silver products into oblivion.

Disingenuous Protest

Since these environmental groups are actively engaged in a long-term battle to force the EPA to regulate nano-silver products -- including some of the major brands of colloidal silver -- their protestations that the funding they've received from charitable foundations linked to Big Pharma companies has not influenced them does seem disingenuous at best.

And all the more so when you consider the fact that a recent investigative report from Associated Press states, “U.S. manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceutical drugs into waterways that often provide drinking water for millions of Americans — contamination the federal government has consistently overlooked…" and that “…trace amounts of a wide range of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in American drinking water supplies…pharmaceuticals have now been detected in the drinking water of at least 51 million Americans.” (Emphasis mine.)

In other words, Big Pharma is polluting the environment with millions of pounds of drugs. But rather than opposing Big Pharma, the environmentalist groups are taking money from charitable foundations associated with them. What's more, these same environmental groups are ruthlessly attacking silver -- the most popular natural health alternative to the prescription antibiotic drugs producted by Big Pharma.

It doesn't take much to see why many people are of the opinion that certain environmentalist groups -- as well-meaning or unwitting as they may be -- have either sold out to the dark side on this particular issue, or are blind to the apparent hypocricy behind their actions.


Here then is a copy of the letter received by investigative reporter Tony Isaacs from an ICTA spokesman in which Tony is not-so-subtly threatened with a lawsuit for his most recent revelations about environmental group funding by foundations linked to Big Pharma. The ICTA letter is followed by Tony's reply to their spokesman:

Dear Mr. Isaacs:

Please inform your readers that the International Center for Technology Assessment and its sister organization, the Center for Food Safety receive no funding from the Merck Pharmaceutical company. In recent years, the International Center for Technology Assessment has received no funding from the John Merck Fund (which is a separate organization from Merck Pharmaceutical). Moreover, neither we nor the Center for Food Safety have ever received Merck Fund money for our pharmaceutical work. The Merck Fund has helped fund our work to oppose genetically modified organisms. This is something that I hope your readers would support.

Moreover, it is irresponsible of your magazine to falsely accuse our organizations and our partner groups of being in the pay of pharmaceutical organizations. We do not accept funds from corporations to do our work. Had you contacted us before printing your allegations, we would happily have provided you with complete information about our funding sources and a more fulsome understanding of our nano-silver petition which is not about taking silver ion drinks off the market.

We expect this letter to be printed in your magazine and a complete retraction of the article. We receive funding from individuals whose gifts could be affected by your inaccurate allegations and would not wish to be in a situation where we have to seek redress from you and your organization.

Jaydee Hanson
Policy Director International Center for Technology Assessment

And here is investigative reporter Tony Isaacs's reply to ICTA spokesperson Jaydee Hanson:

Jaydee -

First of all, the article was clearly labeled as opinion, and I am not aware of the first amendment to the Constitution having been repealed. Second of all, the funding figures and years of funding were accurately reported as listed on identified internet sources.

Regardless of how you may allot your funding, or when different funding has been received, the fact is that funds from pharmaceutical companies have been received and despite your claims to the contrary, nano-particle drinks were clearly a target as demonstrated by the fact that three prominent makers of ionic/colloidal silver were included in the original list of items furnished as part of the petition to the FDA - and many other such silver products were later added as an addendum.

It would be interesting to see you seek redress and have to reveal all the sources of your funding, including any funding from pharmaceutical companies and individuals and organizations connected to the pharmaceutical industry including any funding which was diverted through the Tides Center and Tides Foundation and other groups who do not clearly reveal their funding sources and purposes. Likewise, I would like to see your groups explain why they were concerned about a natural element that has been on the earth since its formation and yet have no similar concerns expressed over the millions of tons of unnatural manmade pharmaceuticals that pollute our water supplies.

It would also be interesting to see explanations for other discrepancies such as the release of the so-called major study on the eve of the expected EPA decision which purported to demonstrate evidence of damage to human cells when the study was actually performed by a relatively obscure group from China with connections to two pharmaceutical companies and merely demonstrated that silver nano-particles killed e-coli bacteria.

I personally would love to see an explanation forthcoming from Friends of the Earth as to why they sent emails this past spring to concerned members who used colloidal silver to assure them that they had no desire or intention to regulate colloidal silver and then in June they published a position paper which stated, "We believe that all over-the-counter colloidal silver products should be immediately withdrawn from the market and their sale should be banned (unless approved as a drug by the appropriate regulatory agency)."

And finally, I would also love to see your groups or anyone else try to justify regulating silver as a pesticide by defining bacteria, viruses and fungi as "pests". If such is the case, why are not antibiotic and antiviral drugs regulated as pesticides - especially given their proven pollution of our waters? How about household bleach, rubbing alcohol or drinking alcohol.

Perhaps there are no ulterior motives, but let me ask you - how much funding did any of your associated groups receive from nano-silver manufacturers? It is undeniable that funding was received from pharmaceutical companies. Which one did you petition to regulate and who do you suppose unbiased science would consider the bigger threat?

If the implications that may be drawn are uncomfortable, it is due to your decision to go after a lesser threat, if one even exists, than a much larger threat which happens to come from companies that have funded your organizations at different points in time.

I do agree with your opposition to GMO organisms and only wish that you had your priorities in better order when it comes to regulating items in our water supply and environment.

BTW, I have no organization nor do I have a magazine.

Best regards,
Tony Isaacs

My Two Cents Worth

In my opinion, anytime a relatively huge organization like ICTA has to resort to legal threats right out of the gate to shut you up, you know you're pretty much on the right track. For as much good as organizations like ICTA may do (and there is no doubt their work against Genetically Modified Organisms is a good work), they completely nullify that good by brandishing the legal cudgel whenever someone has a different opinion than they do.

Rather than simply telling their side of the story publicly, and letting the public decide, or presenting evidence to bolster their case, they threaten to unleash the legal guns. And that should put up red flags in the mind of any thinking individual.

With that in mind, I recently sent Tony Isaacs the following message regarding the above correspondence:


You've done a fabulous job exposing the publicly available documentation of the extensive funding of some of these anti-silver environmental groups by Big Pharma through the charitable foundations associated with their names.

You ought to win one of those awards for "under reported news story of the year."

I love the way the representative from ICTA states with a straight face that they have not received any pharmaceutical company funding. By cleverly claiming there is no connection between the pharmaceutical companies themselves, and the foundation charities that go by their name, Mr. Hansen shrewdly attempts to exonerate ICTA from the charge of taking pharmaceutical company funding. "Nope. Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along."

In my opinion, groups like ICTA, Friends of the Earth and others get away with their nonsense through collusion, subterfuge and confusion. For example, ICTA and their petition co-sponsors published their petition against nano-silver along with its addendum that clearly names some of the most popular colloidal silver products on the market today as being products that need to be investigated, regulated or banned by EPA.

At that time, when some of their own members complained that they should not be attempting to regulate health food products, they send out emails claiming they have no intention of trying to regulate colloidal silver. Then in June of this year one of their most ardent petition co-sponsors (Friends of the Earth) published a lengthy white paper called Nano and Biocidal Silver: Extreme Germ Killers Present a Growing Threat to Public Health, which clearly calls for the withdrawal from the market of "all over-the-counter silver products," and says their sale should be banned.

My suspicion is that inside these environmental groups, either the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, or they purposely send out conflicting information in order to obfuscate, confuse and deceive until they get their proposed regulations approved by EPA.

The bottom line is that if they truly aren't after colloidal silver products, they could simply add a clear, simple and unequivocal statement to their EPA petition, saying, "Nothing herein should be construed to apply to any oral or topical colloidal silver product on the market."

But they don't. Instead, they obfuscate and send out conflicting claims. In the email you received, their spokesperson says they have no intention of "taking silver ion drinks off the market." But ICTA's attorney George Kimbrell tells quite a different story. When he emailed me on January 8 of this year stating, " If the products are composed of nano-silver, then yes, they are different than other larger particles of silver and need to be regulated separately," he was quite clear that colloidal silver products containing silver nano-particles were indeed on ICTA's radar screen.

Going by attorney Kimbrell's past email comments to me, apparently the size of the silver particle will determine which colloidal silver products should be regulated by the EPA and which shouldn't. Of course, since we know from reading the literature and press releases of these environmental groups that they tend to define "nano-silver" as any silver particle between one and 100 nanometers, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most major brands of colloidal silver are included under their "nano-silver" umbrella.

This, in my view, is why ICTA and its petition co-sponsors such as Friends of the Earth have unequivocally named some of the largest and most popular brands of colloidal silver in the country in their petition demanding the EPA investigate and regulate silver products.

Finally, it is supremely ironic to me that these environmental groups claim to hold the health and well-being of the public as their highest priority, yet they want to regulate or ban colloidal silver products containing smaller, safer silver particles, but apparently leave colloidal silver products containing relatively huge chunks of silver on the market for people to drink. Not that it's any of their business what people choose to ingest. But it certainly lays bare their false claim of public interest in this particular matter.

And of course, as you've so rightly pointed out, that doesn't even compare to the hypocrisy involved in the fact that our nation's waterways are being polluted by pharmaceutical drugs yet these environmental groups are instead attacking safe, natural silver which comes from the environment in the first place, and which loses its "nano" qualities once returned to the environment from which it came.

And they wonder why the public begins to draw the conclusion that the funding these environmental groups receive from pharmaceutical company charities might be affecting their decisions?

Keep up the great work, Tony. You've clearly touched a nerve with your journalistic prowess!


Steve Barwick

The Simplest and Smartest Solution

Sooner or later the environmentalist groups are going to end up forcing EPA to regulate nano-silver products.

Whether or not the EPA will follow the views of ICTA attorney George Kimbrell, or the views of ICTA petition co-sponsor Friends of the Earth, and start regulating colloidal silver products containing nano-sized silver particles, is still up for grabs. this point it doesn't look good for colloidal silver manufacturers, vendors, or users.

That's why I must once again advocate that owning the means of colloidal silver production is the simplest and smartest solution to this darkening situation.

By obtaining a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from our good friends at, you'll never again have to worry about whether or not the environmentalist groups are going to be able to force EPA to regulate colloidal silver products. Why? Because you'll be able to make all of the high-quality, micro-particle colloidal silver you could ever need, any time you need it, in the comfort and privacy of your own home. And there's not a blessed thing the environmentalists and the bureaucrats can do about it.

The colloidal silver wars are heating up. And the first casualty of war, as they say, is the truth. In regards to the issue of EPA regulation of nano-silver products, the environmentalist groups are getting tired of being beat up by a relatively tiny handful of colloidal silver users. and it would appear that they are in the process of taking off the legal gloves, in order to prevent the truth from going forth.

You have to evaluate the situation for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. But as for me and my household, we are now making our own colloidal silver.

Helpful Links:

Make your own high-quality colloidal silver:

Learn more about colloidal silver:

The Colloidal Silver Secrets Video:

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual:

Colloidal Silver Cures MRSA:

Colloidal Silver Kills Viruses:

The New Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator:

The Colloidal Silver Secrets blog:

The Secrets of Natural Healing blog:

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

8 Prevalent Myths and Misconceptions About Colloidal Silver

8 Prevalent Myths and Misconceptions About Colloidal Silver
Lately, there’s been more misinformation on colloidal silver going around than I’ve seen since the FDA first instituted their failed campaign to ban it back in the late 1990’s.

People seem to be "salting" various news and social networking forums with this misinformation, in an attempt to get it passed around the internet and posted on even more forums.

This, of course, is a classic campaign to get misinformation about colloidal silver to go "viral," meaning to get it passed around unwittingly by others who think they're doing the world a favor by posting the latest "facts" on colloidal silver.

In reality, they are posting myths about colloidal silver that have been purposely concocted by shills for certain groups that have a vested interest in seeing colloidal silver defamed (think Big Pharma).

Here then, are some of the current myths making the internet rounds:

Myth #1: Children are being harmed by colloidal silver

First, we saw the Friends of the Earth environmentalist group come out with their new position paper calling for a total ban on the over-the-counter sales of colloidal silver products as well as EPA regulation of all products using silver as an antimicrobial agent. And why? Because, they claimed, the proliferation of silver-based antimicrobial products is depriving children of coming into contact with the requisite number of pathogens needed to stimulate their tiny immune systems. Of course, it's an unbelievable claim at face value. After all, little kids eat dirt. They roll around in the grass and dirt all day, throw mud balls at each other, play baseball in empty lots, climb trees, swim in lakes and rivers, play on dirty floors, climb into dumpsters in search of “treasure,” and do all of the things needed to put them into contact with hundreds of billions of microorganisms every single day of their lives. Yet the Friends of the Earth -- with a straight face, mind you -- presented as a reason to ban colloidal silver and other silver-based products the idea that kids’ immune systems were being developmentally deprived thanks to the proliferation of so many silver-based products. And this new myth is now being picked up in forums across the internet, and used as "evidence" that colloidal silver is harmful. Clearly, these guys at the Friends of the Earth have never had children.

Myth #2: Colloidal silver has been “banned by the FDA”

Then we had the recent MSNBC news article written by reporter Mike Celizic which declared that the FDA had “banned colloidal silver” back in 1999. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. What the FDA did was prohibit colloidal silver vendors from labeling their product as a “natural antibiotic” and restrict colloidal silver advertisers from talking about its powerful antimicrobial qualities in advertisements. This action, of course, led to more public interest in colloidal silver than it had ever enjoyed in its entire 100 year history, and propelled colloidal silver into one of the most popular nutritional supplements of all times. Celizic's erroneous contention, however, has now been picked up by other writers and spread across a variety of internet forums where it is being used by opponents of natural health to convince people not to use colloidal silver because it’s been “banned by the FDA.”

Myth #3: Colloidal silver causes a “cytokine storm”

Next, we had a famous internet doctor claim that colloidal silver could cause a potentially deadly “cytokine storm” (massive inflammation) in the lungs of even healthy individuals. The doctor presented no evidence whatsoever for his claim. And a quick search of the available medical data demonstrated that the only significant research done on colloidal silver and cytokines showed that silver actually modified cytokine expression and reduced inflammation. The authors of the medical study even stated that colloidal silver should be further investigated as a potential treatment for the massive inflammation caused by the “cytokine storm” phenomena. The famous internet doctor later removed the erroneous statement from his web site, but not before other writers spread it all over the internet as "evidence" that colloidal silver usage can have potentially "deadly" consequences.

Myth #4: Colloidal silver harms human cells

We also recently saw the old “colloidal silver harms human cells” myth being dredged up again. Once more, the culprit was the environmental group Friends of the Earth, which erroneously attributes medical research demonstrating that silver damages bacterial cells (i.e., e. coli cells) as evidence that silver damages human cells. Of course, they can’t explain how Dr. Robert O. Becker of Syracuse Medical University was able to conduct all of those now famous in vivo (i.e., in the body) medical studies on human subjects, in which he used an electronic device to drive billions of tiny silver particles deep into the infected tissue and bone of “incurable” victims of osteomyelitis, and managed to cure every one of them without causing any harm whatsoever to their cells. Certain other internet writers have also misinterpreted a recent test tube study demonstrating that high levels of silver in the blood stream could harm certain human cells. The levels used in these lab tests would have been the equivalent of 15 ppm in the human blood stream – a level you couldn’t reach without drinking gallons of a standard colloidal silver solution. The bottom line is that contrary to the assertions of the environmentalists, a recent study conducted by researchers at the Department of Neurobiology, Institute of Anatomy, at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, and published in the journal Histochemistry and Cell Biology (5 April 2008) has demonstrated that the human body has a specific process for sequestering and detoxifying accumulated silver and preventing it from harming human cells. This puts the lie to the contentions of the environmentalists who claim that silver damages human cells.

Myth #5: Colloidal silver causes hardening of the arteries

Honestly, I don’t know where in the world this one came from. But suddenly it's cropping up on web sites all over the place, with no documentation whatsoever to back it up. As usual, it appears that one writer is simply quoting another, who is then quoted by another and another, until a complete fallacy becomes “reality.” Several weeks ago I googled "colloidal silver and hardening of the arteries" and "colloidal silver and arteriosclerosis" and searched for several hours. I couldn't find a solid piece of medical documentation for the claim that colloidal silver causes hardening of the arteries, except for the regurgitated and unattributed claims in those articles. I also searched the various medical science news sites (even the ones that are routinely critical of silver) and couldn't find any references to it causing artery problems. What’s more, I hired a pharmaceutical consultant to track down the origin of this growing myth. He searched the PubMed database and other key medical study databases, and could find absolutely nothing indicating any negative connection between colloidal silver and arteriosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. We did find a recent study published in the prestigious medical science journal ACS Nano, demonstrating that silver stops red blood cells from clumping, which would help prevent heart attacks and strokes rather than cause them. You can read about that study here. So at this point my conclusion is that someone just made up the claim out of whole cloth, and it is getting passed around the internet by people too lazy to do any fact-checking or to demand documentation.
Myth #6: Colloidal silver causes harm to kidneys

This pervasive myth, along with Myth #7 below, is being cited in a variety of news articles on the internet, as well as by environmental groups like Friends of the Earth that are working to force the EPA to regulate colloidal silver products as "pesticides." Both of these myths are unfounded. As Dr. Gary Connett wrote in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 2007, "Case reports have described possible nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity, but these have not been substantiated by studies in animal models." (See J R Soc Med 2008: 101: S51–S52. DOI 10.1258/jrsm.2008.s18012.) 
In other words, doctors have speculated that silver usage has caused harm to human kidneys and the human nervous system based on individual case reports, but that speculation has not been proven to be true when silver is actually tested. Silver given to animals during medical studies has shown no significant harm to the kidneys, liver or nervous system of the animals. And it could not be definitively demonstrated that silver was the actual culprit in the few individual human cases that led doctors to speculate that silver may have nephrotoxic or neurotoxic properties. In short, there is no significant evidence that silver harms the liver or the nervous system.

Myth #7: Colloidal silver causes harm to the nervous system

See Myth #6 above. Again, numerous internet "news" reports cite this myth, but there are to date no studies proving it. It is all based upon speculation, from a few single cases in which doctors made assumptions that later could not be proven to be true in animal studies. According to a study titled "Critical Observations on the Neurotoxicity of Silver," published in Critical Review of Toxicology (2007;37:237-50) "Although silver is metabolized throughout the soft tissues, available evidence from experimental animal studies and human clinical reports has failed to unequivocally establish that it enters tissues of the central nervous system or is a cause of neurotoxic damage...No evidence is available to demonstrate the toxic risk of silver to the peripheral nervous system...Transitory silver sulfide deposits seen in the tissues of the blood-brain and blood-CSF barriers are mostly lysosomally bound or deposited on basement membranes or collagen without toxic effect. Silver is mostly excreted from the body in the urine and feces." In other words, in animal studies and human clinical reports, there is no evidence that silver causes harm to the human nervous system.

Myth #8: Colloidal silver causes cancer

This myth is being promulgated chiefly by one of those fake internet "doctors" who is pushing high-dose vitamin C therapy to help prevent infections. Now, I'm not against high-dose vitamin C therapy, but I am against people pretending to be doctors when they're not. And I'm certainly against people who promulgate outright lies, such as the lie that colloidal silver causes cancer. This myth originally circulated in the 1970's after some scientists surgically implanted silver discs under the skin of animals, and saw that sarcomas (soft tissue cancer tumors) later developed. So they announced to the world that silver causes cancer. Later, when more level-headed researchers looked into the situation, they discovered that just about anything surgically implanted under the skin would induce sarcomas, i.e., glass, plastic, ivory, wood, etc. This is due to a phenomena called "solid state carcinogenesis." In other words, it wasn't the silver at all, but the normal effect of just about anything being implanted directly under the surface of the skin. The Environmental Protection Agency later jumped into the fray, looking for another reason to regulate silver, but after reviewing the existing medical and scientific documentation the agency had to conclude, "No evidence of cancer in humans has been reported despite frequent therapeutic use of the compound [i.e., silver] over the years." In other words, there are no cases of colloidal silver-induced cancers reported in the medical or scientific literature. Quite the contrary, researchers Furst and Schlauder later conducted animal studies designed to avoid the possibility of solid state carcinogenesis. They found that silver injected intramuscularly once a month into rats did not induce cancer.  Finally, Britain's top expert on the medical use of silver, Alan G.B. Lansdown, writes in a medical review titled A Pharmacological and Toxicological Profile of Silver as an Antimicrobial Agent in Medical Devices
, "Published cytotoxicity tests and in vivo experience indicate unequivocally that silver is not carcinogenic in any tissue and should be placed in a ‘No Risk’ category.”

Colloidal Silver and Global Warming?

Next, they’ll probably claim that colloidal silver causes global warming.

After all, it takes electricity to make colloidal silver. And electricity is generated through coal fire plants. And coal fire plants put “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. And “greenhouse gases” ostensibly rip holes into the ozone layer allowing excessive ionizing radiation from the sun to come streaming into our atmosphere resulting in warmer temperatures.

So there you have it. We must ban colloidal silver because it causes global warming. Seals are dying in Antarctica because thoughtless, greedy, uncaring natural health lovers are using colloidal silver.

No. Wait. For the sake of the children, we must ban colloidal silver because the FDA has already banned it. No. Wait. We must ban it because it can cause a “cytokine storm” and harm human cells. And that causes global warming. No. Wait…

...Oh, whatever. Just ban it because Big Pharma and the environmentalists hate it. At least that would be honest.

Tired of the Rhetoric?

If you’re sick and tired of the anti-colloidal silver rhetoric, and you realize the powers that be are willing to use any excuse to take away your right to protect yourself naturally against infection and disease, perhaps it’s time to make the leap to owning the means of colloidal silver production.

How? By obtaining a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from our good friends at

What Happens When You Own the Means of Colloidal Silver Production?

When you own a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from, the bureaucrats can pass any laws they want regulating colloidal silver…they can even ban it from being sold at health food stores or on the internet -- BUT they won’t know what you’re doing in the comfort and privacy of your own home. They simply can’t stop you from making and using your own high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver, once you own the means of colloidal silver production.

To learn more about making your own high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver with a brand new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator, check out the links at

Astonishing! 36 Cents a Quart for Superior Quality Colloidal Silver

You’ll learn that owning a brand new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator puts you in the driver’s seat, allowing you to produce all of the high-quality colloidal silver you could ever want, any time you want, for about 36 cents a quart. And because it's micro-particle colloidal silver (as low as .0008 microns in size) it's superior in quality and effectiveness to just about everything on the market.

So why pay exorbitant health food store prices of $20 and $30 for a tiny four-ounce bottle of colloidal silver, when you can make even higher quality micro-particle colloidal silver for just a few pennies per quart?

With colloidal silver now constantly under attack by Big Pharma, the medical bureaucrats, the media and misguided environmentalists who are pushing to have it banned, now is the time to own the means of colloidal silver production. With the price of bottled colloidal silver brands now skyrocketing, it just doesn’t make sense to do anything but make your own.

Helpful Links:

Make your own high-quality colloidal silver:

Learn more about colloidal silver:

The Colloidal Silver Secrets Video:

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual:

Colloidal Silver Cures MRSA:

Colloidal Silver Kills Viruses:

The New Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator:

The Colloidal Silver Secrets blog:

The Secrets of Natural Healing blog: