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 NaturalNews.com 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.

But...at 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 TheSilverEdge.com, 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:



Anonymous said...

Very good post ,thanks,
It is very funny to read:

"The Merck Fund has helped fund our work to oppose genetically modified organisms"
and then :

"We do not accept funds from corporations to do our work."
Is that what they call : a BS in English ?

Anonymous said...

Excellent, keep up the good work. I have been a user of colloidal silver for quite a few years with excellent results. I do what I can to promote it among my friends and anyone else I encounter. I wanted to purchase a colloidal silver generator for myself, but due to economic conditions it will have to wait awhile.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Thanks for all your good work and follow up with Tony Issacs on this important issue.

It would, I think, we a service to your readers to better understand the issues involved if you could reference the actual complaint(s) being considered by the EPA, such as the EPA CASRN (7440-22-4), finding no carcinogenic correlation with Cs in human or animal investigations: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0099.htm#woe -
"__II.A.1. Weight-of-Evidence Characterization
Classification — D; not classified as to human carcinogenicity
Basis — In animals, local sarcomas have been induced after implantation of foils and discs of silver. However, the interpretation of these findings has been questioned due to the phenomenon of solid-state carcinogenesis in which even insoluble solids such as plastic have been shown to result in local fibrosarcomas.
__II.A.2. Human Carcinogenicity Data
No evidence of cancer in humans has been reported despite frequent therapeutic use of the compound over the years. "

Where is the documentation found on the pesticide issue from the EPA point of view?


Colloidal Silver said...

You make some great points here. Anytime you are threatened with legal action you are usually correct. I've had some great experiences with colloidal silver and I'm a big proponent of it even though doctors have told me opposite. Thanks for sharing this and your thoughts.