In this Era
of Strange Diseases in which we now live, consumer demand for products impregnated
with antimicrobial silver -- such as toothbrushes, water filters, computer
keyboards, kitchen cutting boards, food storage containers, medical devices and
more -- is growing by leaps and bounds.
That’s because silver helps stop the spread of up to 99% of infectious
microorganisms on such items.
But around
the world, private environmentalist groups and government environmental bureaucrats
are now working hand-in-hand to prevent consumers from having access to
products that have incorporated antimicrobial silver into their makeup.
Indeed, in
what appears to be a globally coordinated campaign reaching from Europe to
Australia to North America, environmentalists groups and their bureaucratic
counterparts in government are now using the specious and speculative argument
that silver can leach from these products and eventually find its way into the waterways
where it “might” harm fish or other wildlife, or even result in microbes
becoming silver-resistant.
The truth is
quite the opposite, of course. There are
already millions of tons of trace mineral silver in the world’s waterways that
exist there naturally, without any help from man. And there’s been no hint of harm to the
environment from all of this natural, microscopic trace silver that’s been
there for millennia.
But as the old
saying goes, “Truth is the first casualty of war.” And don’t be deceived: The environmentalist campaign to ban the use
of antimicrobial silver in consumer products IS a war being waged for the
complete corporate and government control of your health and well-being. Here’s
what I’m talking about…
My
good friend Anders Sultan, who manufactures Sweden's most popular brand of
colloidal silver, Ionosil, is reporting that a Swedish Environmental minister,
Lena Ek, has called for a ban on the use of antimicrobial silver in all
consumer products.
Simultaneously,
as if on cue, Anders Finnson, an “environmental advisor” with the Swedish Water
& Wastewater Association, has published a typical hysterical critique of
the use of antimicrobial silver in consumer products, claiming:
“Silver is very dangerous to
fish and crustaceans, which are important to the ecosystems of our waters.
Silver ions are in fact so toxic to aquatic organisms they are comparable to
mercury. There are also concerns about a link between antibacterial agents and
the development of resistant bacteria.”
This
claim is then reiterated in a news article by environmental writer Ulla Karlsson-Ottosson, published in the online newspaper, NY Teknik (i.e., New Technology), who states:
“Silver ions
kill bacteria. But they are also an environmental toxin, at least as toxic as
mercury…The silver ends up in wastewater treatment plants where the beneficial
water-purifying bacteria are then at risk of being killed.”
This,
of course, is complete nonsense. There’s
no comparison whatsoever between silver, a noble metal, and mercury, a toxic
heavy metal. In fact, silver used to be added to mercury amalgam fillings for
the specific purpose of ameliorating the toxic qualities of the mercury!
But
while sensationalistic and completely fabricated comparisons of safe, natural
antimicrobial silver to known toxic substances like mercury may help generate
news headlines for the environmentalists and their bureaucratic counterparts,
they also demonstrate the extreme and decidedly unethical lengths the greenies
will go to in order to deprive the public of access to antimicrobial silver and
its vast array of infection-fighting benefits.
Sensationalism
Sells…
Apparently
the Swedish environmentalists and their counterparts in the Swedish government are
attempting to follow the same unscrupulous anti-silver propaganda program that the
radical anti-silver environmentalists here in the U.S. and in other parts of
the western world have been following.
First,
the environmentalists make broad, sensationalistic claims against antimicrobial
silver that have no basis in reality.
These shrill claims are then coordinated with calls by prominent
environmental bureaucrats for a ban on the use of antimicrobial silver in
consumer products. And then the claims are repeated melodramatically, ad nauseum, in newspapers or in online news
sources under blaring, tabloid-style headlines.
For
example, the anti-silver environmentalists here in the U.S. -- who for years
have been linked to taking
millions of dollars in donations from charitable foundations set up by Big
Pharma
-- frequently claim, with straight
faces, mind you, that the use of antimicrobial silver in consumer products will
harm children by preventing them from coming into contact with the requisite
number of pathogens needed to stimulate their tiny immune systems.
But
as I wrote in my article 8 Prevalent
Myths and Misconceptions About Colloidal Silver, “As anyone
with children knows, this claim is completely ludicrous. After all, little kids roll around in the
grass and dirt all day. They throw mud
balls at each other. They play baseball
in empty lots, climb trees, swim in lakes and rivers, play on dirty floors, and
climb into dumpsters in search of ‘treasure.’ In short, children do all of the
things needed to put themselves into contact with hundreds of billions of
microorganisms every single day of their lives.”
So
the idea that the use of antimicrobial silver on a kitchen cutting board or a
computer keyboard will deprive little children of having their immune systems
stimulated by germs is laughable. Yet
the environmentalists use these kinds of absurd and sensationalist claims (see
a good example, here) hoping
they’ll scare parents into refusing to purchase products that incorporate
antimicrobial silver into their makeup.
What’s
more, you’ll now find these same shrill propaganda tactics being used in other
parts of the world, including Australia, New Zealand and other western industrialized
countries.
For
example, see this
ludicrous newspaper article from Australia’s Herald Sun,
in which the environmentalist make the unbelievably ridiculous claim that
antimicrobial silver used in stockings to help prevent stinky feet is causing
“global warming” and “killing the planet.”
Exaggerated
Claims v/s Facts
In
an article published in News Voice, Anders
Sultan points out that the criticism from the environmentalists over of the use
of antimicrobial silver in consumer products is often so specious, they have to
resort to the use of weasel words and speculative phrases like "may cause
harm" or "might prove to be toxic," since they have no real evidence of silver from consumer
products ever causing harm or toxicity under real-world conditions.
As
Sultan stated:
"We’ve lived
with silver at our side for thousands of years, not just in the environment
where it comes from in the first place, but also in consumer goods such as necklaces,
bracelets, rings, cutlery, plates and cups.
Yet the
environmental bureaucrats persist in trying to convince people that suddenly
all bacteria are in danger of becoming immune to antimicrobial silver because
of the small amount of silver coming into wastewater treatment plants.
Yet in the
1980's there was 10 times more silver coming into wastewater treatment plants
than there is today. But there was no
problem with microbial resistance to silver then."
In
a personal communication with this author, Sultan pointed out that in Sweden, over
the past 20 years silver from commercial sources being released into nature
through wastewater has dropped from 47 mg/kg in 1987 to a measly 4 mg/kg 2011 –
an astonishing 90% drop.
This
of course, had largely to do with the advent of digital photography in the
early 1990’s, which gradually did away with the need to process tens of
millions of rolls of film each year using silver halide.
Yet
even in 1987, when silver entering wastewater treatment plants had reached its zenith
just before the advent of digital photography, there were no signs whatsoever of silver being detrimental to the environment
or creating antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.
But
now that silver levels in wastewater are 90% lower than they were in 1987, the environmentalists are screaming
that it’s the end of the world as we know it.
They claim silver-resistant pathogens are going to start climbing out of
the mire and marching into our homes if we don’t ban the use of antimicrobial
silver in consumer products altogether.
Go figure.
Junk Science…
Sultan
goes on to point out that many of the clinical studies touted by the
environmentalists as demonstrating harm to aquatic life from antimicrobial silver
have, upon closer examination, turned out to be little more than agenda-driven
junk science studies conducted in artificial laboratory conditions rather than
being conducted under real-world conditions.
Indeed,
these studies are often fatally flawed from the outset, being specifically
designed by environmental researchers to reach the preconceived conclusion that
antimicrobial silver used in consumer products is harmful, or toxic, or acts as
a “pollutant” (learn more about biased silver studies, here).
Says
Sultan, “Claims of risk to aquatic life
are based on studies conducted in artificial laboratory conditions using
sterile aquariums without any hint of organic matter. But in nature, silver
falls to the bottom of lakes, rivers and streams and is incorporated into
sediments where it binds with organic material such as sulphur and is largely neutralized.”
Sultan
continues, “The environmental bureaucrats
attempt to sweep these facts under the carpet, relying instead on contrived laboratory
studies to achieve their goal of depriving consumers of the protection of antimicrobial
silver.”
Bearing
out Sultan’s contentions is a recent study conducted by researchers at the
Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technologies (EMPA), and
published in the well-known and trusted science journal, Environmental Science & Technology.
According to
the study authors, after 120 years of nanosilver usage by consumers – in
applications ranging from public and private swimming pools, fountains,
cosmetics, medicines, wound care, disinfectant products, water filters, and
dietary supplements used by millions worldwide -- there has been no significant discernible harm to the
environment from silver.
Sultan
concludes:
“Let’s ask instead how
dangerous the pharmaceutical drug residues in our waterways are. We know, for example, that pharmaceutical
drugs being found in aquatic environments are creating hermaphrodite fish. This is apparently preferable to the
environmental bureaucrats than having a natural element like silver being
returned to nature where it once came from.
Why aren’t
the environmental bureaucrats instead making the effort to ensure we don’t end
up drinking antidepressant medications, antibiotic residues or various hormone
preparations in our home drinking water?”
Good
questions, indeed. And these are
questions the radical, anti-silver environmentalists assiduously sidestep when
asked.
The bottom
line is this: The battle is on for your
mind. The radical anti-silver
environmentalists are doing the bidding of Big Pharma by working to take away
the world’s safest and most natural method of preventing the spread of
infectious microorganisms.
And
to accomplish this goal, they have to deceive the public into believing the sky
is falling, i.e., that there’s an imminent and catastrophic threat to the
environment from antimicrobial silver.
The ultimate goal, of course, is complete corporate and government control
of your health and well-being.
Of
course, it’s up to you whether or not
you fall for it. To learn more about the
powerful infection-fighting qualities of safe, natural colloidal silver, click the link.
Yours for the
safe, sane and responsible use of
colloidal silver,
Important Note and
Disclaimer:The contents of this Ezine have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and
reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and
reliability thereof.The author, Steve
Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience
writing professionally about natural health topics.He is not
a doctor.Therefore, nothing stated in
this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of
this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical
advice.Nothing reported herein is
intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.The author is simply reporting in
journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of
journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage.Therefore, the information and data presented
should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with
caution.Readers should verify for
themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources
such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas,
conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein.All important health care decisions should be
made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and
experienced health care professional.Readers are solely responsible for their choices.The author and publisher disclaim responsibility
or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a result of the
use or application of any information included in this Ezine.
Copyright
2012 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ
85380-1239 | All rights reserved
In their zeal to restrict the use of
antimicrobial silver in consumer products, the radical anti-silver
environmentalists keep screaming from the rooftops that silver nanoparticles
are so dangerously toxic, even exposure to minor levels will harm little
critters in the environment, setting off a cascade that will destroy wildlife
and constitute a grave threat to the environment.
But more and more emerging clinical research
demonstrates that antimicrobial silver – including colloidal silver
nanoparticles -- pose little-to-no threat to wildlife whatsoever. Indeed, in a brand new clinical study even
when mice were exposed to a whopping 5,000 ppm colloidal silver nanoparticles for
several days at a time, there were no toxic effects whatsoever.
Here’s information about the most
recent studies the radical anti-silver environmentalist hope you’ll never see…
Several weeks
ago in an article titledNew Research: Silver Nanoparticles Not Toxic, I wrote about a brand new 2012
clinical study published in the prestigious journal Nanotoxicology…
…in which
researchers tested silver nanoparticles on adult guinea pigs for genotoxicity,
acute oral and dermal toxicity, eye and dermal irritation and corrosion, and
skin sensitization.
In these
animal tests, the researchers found there were no abnormal signs or mortality
from oral doses of 2,000 ppm nanosilver – an astonishingly high concentration
of nanosilver for a small animal like a guinea pig.
What’s more,
when the animals were sacrificed and examined microscopically, there was no toxicity
found, nor harm to the integrity of the cell’s genetic material. Nor was there any acute eye or dermal irritation
or corrosion when the silver nanoparticles were tested in the eyes and on the
skin of the animals.
This was an
acute study, meaning the research was conducted for only a short duration. But it did demonstrate that short-term
exposure to even excessively high concentrations of nanosilver caused basically
no harm to the animals tested.
Another New Study
Now in another
new animal study published in June 2011 in the Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, even higher doses of silver nanoparticles were used, this time on small mice.
And guess
what? Once again, researchers found no
significant harm to the little critters whatsoever.
Indeed, this
time concentrations of 5,000 ppm colloidal
silver nanoparticles were used. Keep in
mind that on average, most humans use between 5 ppm to 10 ppm colloidal
silver. Tiny mice being given a whopping 5,000 ppm
colloidal silver nanoparticles would be the rough equivalent of a human using 1,000,000
(yes, one million) ppm colloidal
silver!
And once
again, these excessively high levels of nanosilver produced neither mortality
nor acute toxic signs in the mice throughout the 24-hour and 72-hour
observation periods.
After the
mice were sacrificed and examined, the researchers concluded:
“In the hematological analysis, there was no
significant difference between mice treated with AgNPs and controls. Blood
chemistry analysis also showed no differences in any of the parameter examined.
There was neither any gross lesion nor histopathological change observed in
various organs.”
In other
words, these unbelievably high concentrations of silver nanoparticles didn’t
cause any internal problems whatsoever.
What’s more,
the researchers stated, “Percentage of
body weight gain of the mice showed no significant difference between control
and treatment groups.” In other
words, there was no loss of appetite, weight or other abnormal signs that might
indicate a toxic reaction.
The
researchers also concluded, “In acute eye
irritation and corrosion study, no mortality and toxic signs were observed when
various doses of colloidal AgNPs were instilled in guinea pig eyes during 72 hr
observation period. However, the instillation of AgNPs at 5,000 ppm produced
transient eye irritation during early 24 hr observation time.”
So
apparently there was a little bit of eye irritation when the researchers used
5,000 ppm colloidal silver nanoparticles directly into the eyes of the poor
little mice. But the irritation was
“transient,” i.e., it was only temporary, disappearing after 48 hours!
Finally,
the researchers concluded:
“Nor was any gross
abnormality noted in the skins of the guinea pigs exposed to various doses of
colloidal AgNPs. In addition, no significant AgNPs exposure relating to dermal
tissue changes was observed microscopically.
In summary,
these findings of all toxicity tests in this study suggest that colloidal AgNPs
could be relatively safe when administered to oral, eye and skin of the animal
models for short periods of time.”
Bye, Bye Enviro Hyperbole!
Studies like
these continue to refute the shrill contentions of the radical anti-silver
environmentalists who claim that exposure to even low levels of antimicrobial
silver have the potential to wreak havoc on little critters and other wildlife
in the environment.
Of course,
for millennia the environment has contained literally millions of tons of nanosilver in the form of trace
mineral silver that exists naturally. Indeed,
it has only recently been discovered by researchers that Mother Nature appears to make her own nanosilver, and is indeed the world’s most
prolific manufacturer of nanosilver.
And of course
none of this silver has ever harmed wildlife or caused any kind of environment
catastrophe. Indeed, the case could be
made that Mother Nature uses nanosilver to keep infectious microorganisms from
growing out-of-control in the environment.
So truth be
told, the real agenda of the radical
anti-silver environmentalists has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting wildlife
or the environment. Instead, their
entire agenda seems to be to strip consumers of the one safe, natural protection against infectious
microorganisms and disease that Big Pharma can’t control.
After all,
for years these same environmental groups that now oppose the use of antimicrobial
silver in consumer products have been taking
millions of dollars in contributions
from charitable foundations set up by Big Pharma.
And as you
know, Big Pharma hates antimicrobial silver with a passion. Indeed, it sees silver as the one substance that alleviate the spread
of infectious disease and ultimately destroy sales of its increasingly more
expensive prescription antibiotic drugs.
I’ll continue
to report on studies demonstrating the lack of toxicity of nanosilver to
wildlife and the environment as they come out.
After all, these are the very studies the environmentalists and their
cronies in the news media hope you’ll never see.
In the
meantime, I remain…
Yours for the
safe, sane and responsible use of
colloidal silver,
Important Note and
Disclaimer: The contents of this Ezine have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and
reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and
reliability thereof. The author, Steve
Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience
writing professionally about natural health topics. He is not
a doctor. Therefore, nothing stated in
this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of
this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical
advice. Nothing reported herein is
intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The author is simply reporting in
journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of
journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage. Therefore, the information and data presented
should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with
caution. Readers should verify for
themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources
such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas,
conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein. All important health care decisions should be
made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and
experienced health care professional.
Readers are solely responsible for their choices. The author and publisher disclaim
responsibility or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a
result of the use or application of any information included in this Ezine.
Copyright
2012 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ
85380-1239 | All rights reserved
Scientist Roy
MacCuspie has admonished nanosilver researchers to take into account the
varying characteristics of the antimicrobial substance when conducting research
into its supposed toxicity.
He says
researchers, above all, need to “do good science” when researching nanosilver. But is he really a proponent of “good
science”? Or is he all-too willing to
sacrifice good science at the altar of compromise?
In
this news
article a
scientist named Dr. Robert MacCuspie, of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, appears on the surface to be taking a rational approach to research
into the supposed “toxicity” of antimicrobial nanosilver in relation to its use
in consumer products.
According
to the article, Dr. MacCuspie is admonishing his fellow nanosilver researchers
to “do good science.”
“Hypothesis
Testing”…
But
what’s most interesting to me is that Dr. MacCuspie specifically admits the
fact that some research to date has been “hypothesis testing,” which he describes
as studies in which “massive amounts” of nanosilver are used in laboratory
environments to “explore the worst-case scenario.”
I
propose, however, that this type of testing should be called “researcher bias demonstrations”
rather than “hypothesis testing.”
Why? Because to date we’ve seen far too many
examples in which the researchers – usually environmentalists by profession --
all too often start out with the preconceived
bias that nanosilver is so toxic to humans, animals and the environment it
needs to be eliminated from commercial products altogether.
These
researchers then set the parameters of their laboratory experiments to such artificially
high levels that their preconceived bias of nanosilver “toxicity” cannot help
but be “proven.”
The Infamous
Fathead Minnow Study
For
example, in my article Silver Is
Toxic to Fathead Minnows I discuss the study conducted by environmental researchers at
Purdue University, in which they claim to have demonstrated conclusively that
silver nanoparticles are “toxic” fish.
This
research was clearly done to “prove” the oft-stated environmentalist contention
that if silver nanoparticles are allowed to make their way into the
environment, an ecological catastrophe of immense proportions will ensue.
Indeed,
the Purdue researchers, in my opinion, were so determined to prove their preconceived
biases against nanosilver they appear to have abandoned all sense of scientific
propriety in the course of conducting their study.
Not
only did these researchers continue to add silver nanoparticles to an artificial
laboratory habitat full of poor little fathead minnows (a common test fish) until
reaching excessively high levels that would virtually never be seen in real-world conditions…
…but
they also sonicated the solution so
that the nanosilver stayed suspended in the water where the poor little minnows
would be exposed to it every second of
the day, 24 hours a day.
In
real-world conditions, nanosilver tends to fall to the bottom of watery
environments such as rivers, lakes and streams, where it becomes bound to
sulfur and other minerals, losing its “nano” characteristics in the process,
and essentially becoming inert.
This
is why, for example, the lakes and streams around Colorado’s silver-mining
districts are literally teaming with fish and other wildlife – from tiny microscopic
critters to tiny minnows to trophy trout -- in spite of the high trace mineral silver
content of these bodies of water.
And
it’s why the oceans of the world are also literally teaming with fish, wildlife
and microflora, in spite of the fact there’s millions of tons of trace mineral silver content in them.
But
the Purdue researchers didn’t attempt to duplicate real-world conditions. Not at all.
Indeed, they appear to have purposely created artificial conditions that
could only “prove” their preconceived bias of nanosilver toxicity.
Naturally,
the bias of the researchers against nanosilver were borne out in the study
results. And thus were borne screaming
news headlines “Nanosilver Found to Be Toxic to Fish” that were flashed around
the world via the internet after the study results were released.
And
of course, anti-silver environmentalist groups then touted the study as proof
positive that all commercial products containing nanosilver need to be
immediately pulled from the market in order to “save the environment.”
Is Milk Toxic to Fathead Minnows?
But
as I point out in my article, the researchers could have conducted the same
experiment using common minerals like iron, or copper or even calcium or salt. Indeed, they could have used rather innocuous
substances like sugar, milk, grape juice or virtually ANY substance. And guess what? They’d have gotten the same results as long as they allowed their bias to control the
study parameters.
For
example, had they added milk to the laboratory minnow habitat until the little
minnows croaked from fat deposits in their gills, would you have seen screaming
headlines saying “Milk Found to Be Toxic to Fish”?
And
would you have had environmentalist groups touting the milk study as “proof”
that all commercial products containing milk need to be pulled from the market
immediately in case the substance ever “makes its way into the environment”?
Naturally,
such a ruse wouldn’t have worked because people are intimately familiar with milk,
and would see through the deception immediately. They would know the “research” was nothing
more than sensationalistic junk science
designed to justify a researcher’s particular bias against milk.
Taking
Advantage of Public Ignorance
But
unfortunately, the public is largely ignorant of antimicrobial nanosilver. And therefore many people are easily misled
on the subject by highly biased anti-silver activists.
Indeed,
nanosilver is all-too-often described in breathless, emotion-laden terms by the
environmentalist researchers as a “brand new untested substance” with “unknown
qualities” that’s being “engineered using nanotechnology” (oh, my!) and is
“thought to be highly toxic” even while it’s being “indiscriminately introduced
into hundreds of commercial products.”
So
in reality, we’ve been exposed to nanosilver in varying degrees throughout the millennia! Yet to date all of this exposure to
nanosilver has not resulted in a single environmental or public health crisis,
or even the slightest of problems, for that matter. (See study, 120 Years of
Nanosilver History: Implications for Policy Makers.)
But
that doesn’t seem to stop obviously biased researchers from conducting studies purposely designed from the outset to
“prove” the supposed toxicity of nanosilver.
And
when these biased studies are combined with overblown rhetoric from the
anti-silver environmentalist crowd, and plastered all over the internet by a
compliant news media more intent on delivering sensationalistic headlines
rather than real news, the nanosilver detractors are able to frighten the
public into believing nanosilver is the modern-day equivalent of nuclear
radiation or asbestos.
The
reality, of course, is quite the opposite.
For over 120 years nanosilver has had one of the best toxicological
profiles of all substances used in
commercial products. As Keith Moeller of American Biotech Labs has pointed out,
nanosilver is so innocuous compared to common consumer products like laundry
bleach, even huge spills don’t have
to be reported:
“A chlorine-type cleaning product (found for
open purchase on store shelves right now) has a toxic spill rating of about
three gallons, meaning that a spill of three gallons or more must be reported
to the EPA and handled by HAZMAT authorities.
In
comparison, American Biotech Labs’ 32 ppm nano-silver product has a toxic spill
rating of 12,500,000 gallons. An oil tanker will hold about a million gallons,
which means that 12.5 oil tankers full of the ASAP nano silver disinfectant
would have to spill their entire loads of the product together to be deemed a
toxic event to the environment.”
Agenda-Driven
(Junk) Science
In
short, researchers who start out with a particular bias tend to tilt their
study parameters to support that bias.
It’s called agenda-driven (junk) science, and it’s rampant.
As
I’ve pointed out time and time again, there’s not a single substance on the face of the earth that you can’t
demonstrate to be “toxic” at some excessive level of contact or intake.
As
Paracelsus, a physician living over 400 years ago who is often referred to as
the "Grandfather of Pharmacology,” wisely observed, “The dose is the
poison.”
In
other words, a little bit of a certain substance might be very beneficial to
consumers, but too much can be potentially deadly. This is true of sugar, salt, tobacco,
alcohol, pharmaceutical drugs…hey…even water
is toxic at a certain level of intake (it’s called “drowning”).
But
we don’t regulate them all into oblivion.
Some of them we trust the public to self-regulate. And others with more egregious toxic
characteristics – such as pharmaceutical drugs -- we regulate by conducting (hopefully)
unbiased research that helps establish reasonable parameters of use or contact,
and then enforcing those parameters for the public good.
Science
once understood this. But the
agenda-driven anti-silver crowd has cast this wisdom aside in favor of the
mantra that silver toxicity at any
level in unacceptable, no matter how unlikely it would ever be encountered in
real-world conditions. And the very real
antimicrobial benefits to consumers from exposure to reasonable levels of
nanosilver be damned!
Most
people simply don’t realize the unethical and unscientific lengths some
researchers will go to in order to justify their own internal bias – including conducting
studies that use artificially high levels of an otherwise innocuous substance (like
nanosilver) and then claiming this as proof the substance needs to be banned
from commercial use altogether.
Following the
Script
If
researchers were intent on finding out how much nanosilver is “too much,” so
that the public could be protected from excessive levels, they’d get no
argument from me.
But
the reality is, in too many cases the researchers are intent on following a
scripted agenda to a pre-conceived conclusion.
And of course that pre-conceived conclusion is banning the use of nanosilver in commercial products.
If
you’ve been watching, you’ve seen this kind of bias time and time again. Real science is often thrown out the window
in favor of agenda-driven junk science.
For
example, the recent study demonstrating no harm to
trout from nanosilver exposure was discarded by the environmentalists in favor of the highly
biased “study” conducted in an artificial laboratory environment demonstrating significant
harm to fathead minnows from nanosilver exposure.
The
bottom line is that the anti-silver environmentalist camp frequently
cherry-picks only those studies that
match their anti-silver bias, and casts aside any study that doesn’t.
Unscrupulous
Bias
You
might also remember, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency scientist
who was recently fired from his job (well, “asked to resign”) after being
caught on video tape urging his fellow environmentalists to help “crucify” the
oil companies.
That
same biased mentality dominates too much of the environmentalist research into nanosilver
today. Almost all of it is of the hysterical,
agenda-driven, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it variety.
For
example, check out the delirious research described in this article which supposedly demonstrates nanosilver is “killing the planet” by
triggering “climate change.” You’ll see
what I mean. The charges against
nanosilver by the anti-silver environmentalists are often bordering on the
insane.
Stuck in the
Middle With You…
As
I pointed out earlier, Dr. MacCuspie casually refers to this kind of junk
science research as “hypothesis testing” and says it’s designed to determine
“worst case scenarios.”
I
propose, if he truly wants to “do
good science” as he admonishes other researchers, he needs to start with the
admission that much of the “hypothesis testing” to date has been hysterical, agenda-driven
nonsense, and should be discarded altogether.
In
the news article, Dr. MacCuspie goes on to state that “hypothesis testing” of
nanosilver needs to be balanced with
“testing that’s aimed at simulating real-world conditions.”
I
couldn’t agree more with doing testing that simulates real-world
conditions. And I applaud Dr. MacCuspie
for this contention.
But
why in the world should bona-fide, unbiased
real-world studies on nanosilver be “balanced” against the overblown
“hypothesis testing” that so readily gives way to biased conclusions and
sensationalistic headlines designed to deceive and frighten the general public?
Dr.
MacCuspie, however, states that “…we’re really trying to do our best to meet in the middle.”
Really? Meet in the middle? I think that’s a pseudo-scientific copout of
immense proportions at best, and a grave public disservice, at worst. You don’t
compromise real-world science with junk science by saying “Let’s meet somewhere
in the middle.”
Instead,
you should toss the junk science “hypothesis testing” studies into the East
River, conduct the real-world studies, and come to some honest, unbiased conclusions that truly balance consumer safety against
the benefits of using antimicrobial silver in consumer products.
Benefit and Protect the Public
In
that light, I have to give Dr. MacCuspie kudos for stating that understanding
the potential risk of a product consists of “basically balancing the toxicity
of a substance against the level of exposure.”
Absolutely! That’s crucial to understanding how much
nanosilver should be used in a given commercial product so that the desired
antimicrobial benefits are achieved without
later risk to the consumer or the environment.
The
article about Dr. MacCuspie concludes by saying, “If policymakers within
federal agencies see 20 papers saying nanosilver is toxic, and 20 papers saying
it’s not, they’re left with a muddle.”
Indeed. But if these policy makers would grow a set
of cajones and do their jobs by
throwing out the nanosilver studies that were nothing more than sensationalistic
junk science disguised as “hypothesis testing”…
…and
only consider the studies based on
real-world conditions that were conducted without bias against nanosilver…then the environmental regulators could make
sane policy that would both benefit and
protect the public.
It’s
my contention that allowing the use of nanosilver in consumer products at
levels that demonstrate antimicrobial benefit without harm to the public health
or the environment should be the only
real goal of current and future research.
The
widespread public use of nanosilver for the past 120 years has not caused any significant environmental or public
health concerns. So research that’s
clearly been designed to demonstrate a need to ban the use of nanosilver in consumer products should simply be
filed in the “Journal of Ludicrous Conclusions” and ignored.
Yours for the
safe, sane and responsible use of
colloidal silver,
Important Note and
Disclaimer:The contents of this Ezine have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and
reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and
reliability thereof.The author, Steve
Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience
writing professionally about natural health topics.He is not
a doctor.Therefore, nothing stated in
this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of
this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical
advice.Nothing reported herein is
intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.The author is simply reporting in
journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of
journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage.Therefore, the information and data presented
should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with
caution.Readers should verify for
themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources
such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas,
conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein.All important health care decisions should be
made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and
experienced health care professional.Readers are solely responsible for their choices.The author and publisher disclaim
responsibility or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a
result of the use or application of any information included in this Ezine.
Copyright
2012 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ
85380-1239 | All rights reserved
Is nebulizing
colloidal silver a safe and effective method of colloidal silver usage? Some colloidal silver advocates say it is. Many of them cite dramatic instances of
profound healing they’ve experienced by using this method.
Others, like
myself, tend to be enthusiastic about the effectiveness of nebulizing colloidal
silver, but very conservative regarding the use of this method until clinical studies
can demonstrate conclusively the long-term safety of inhaling minute silver
particles into the soft tissues of the lungs.
After all, there
have been ZERO human safety studies conducted on inhaling colloidal
silver. And “safety first” should always
be your motto when it comes to your long-term health and well-being. With that in mind, here’s what you need to
know about nebulizing colloidal silver…
Back
in October 2001 the prestigious Health Sciences Institute pointed out that nebulizing
colloidal silver directly into the lungs is one of the fastest ways of effectively
eliminating serious upper respiratory infections, including bronchitis and pneumonia.
One
of their well-known health symposium panelists, Dr. Victor A. Marcial-Vega,
M.D., had discovered, while dealing with pneumonia patients, that colloidal
silver can be quickly and easily atomized into a fine mist and inhaled into the
lungs using a device called a nebulizer.
The silver is then easily carried into the human blood stream and from
there directly into the body’s cells and tissues.
The
apparent result was rapid and highly effective remission of pneumonia symptoms,
as the tiny silver particles in the colloidal silver killed the infectious
agents causing the pneumonia.
What’s more, a clinical
study on animals was conducted several years ago in which inhalation of silver
nanoparticles appeared to provide miraculous protection against pneumonia
infection.
In
fact, in the above-linked article on this study, it was reported that mice
purposely infected with pneumonia bacteria easily survived the infection when
they were allowed to inhale silver nanoparticles once per day, whereas mice
with the same infection but which were not
allowed to inhale silver nanoparticles all died.
While
this is one of the very few clinical studies to date conducted on inhaling antimicrobial
silver, it does seem to offer profound hope that a safe, natural way has been
discovered to help staunch the devastating effects of serious upper respiratory
infections.
Not so Fast…
However…additional
safety studies on animals have found that long-term inhalation of silver into
the lungs can lead to accumulation of silver in the soft tissues of the lungs,
as well as inflammation, reduced lung function and other problems.
While
these animal studies are not conclusive regarding the safety of nebulizing
colloidal silver into the lungs, they do indicate that until human safety studies are conducted,
significant caution and common sense should be utilized when considering such a
means of delivering colloidal silver into the body.
In
just a moment we’ll take a look at those animal safety studies, and discuss
their significance to humans. But first,
for those who may be unfamiliar with the idea of nebulizing, here’s a brief overview:
Nebulizing: the Short Course
The process of
“nebulizing” certain liquid medications is chiefly used by asthmatics who need
to get their medications deep into the lungs as rapidly as possible during the
course of an asthma attack, or to prevent one from taking place.
But
it can also be used with other liquid medications, as well as natural liquid substances
such as certain homeopathic remedies, or even colloidal silver.
Here’s
how it works: A liquid medication is
poured into a small basin, or water well that’s generally located in the neck
of a device called an ultrasonic nebulizer.
When the
nebulizer is started, the liquid is aerosolized
into a super-fine mist. And depending
upon which type of nebulizer you own, the mist gently emits through a small mouthpiece,
or through a mask that goes over the face.
As
the fine atomized mist comes out of the mouthpiece, or the mask, it can then be
easily inhaled directly into the lungs.
And from the lungs the body can efficiently and effectively distribute
the medication straight into the blood stream, cells and tissues.
Obtaining a
Nebulizer
Nebulizers
are considered to be medical devices, so most commercial drug stores or medical
outlets want a prescription from your doctor before they'll sell you one. However,
people often sell them on eBay and other web sites, with no requirement of a
medical prescription.
So
if you’re adventurous, and you understand that this is highly experimental and
you’re willing to take personal
responsibility for your own decisions, you can easily pick one up for under
$40 or so by going to eBay and using the eBay search engine.
Just
search under the term "nebulizer" or “Omron nebulizer” and you’re
sure to find one. (Omron is one of the
top manufacturers of commercial nebulizers.
I have the Omron brand, but there are others you can get if you like.)
One Doctor’s
Successful Results
Here’s
what the Health Sciences Institute told their members about nebulizing colloidal silver back in 2001. (This was directly after the 9-11 attacks on
New York City and Washington D.C., and subsequent anthrax mailings; hence the
references to anthrax):
“Just in his last decade of medical practice, Dr. Marcial-Vega has
treated hundreds of people with a variety of viral, fungal, and bacterial
pneumonias. And of all the available treatments, he has seen the greatest
success with nebulizer treatments using a colloidal silver preparation.
Silver has long been known for its anti-bacterial properties, and
the nebulizer allows the mineral to reach the lungs and kill harmful bacteria.
Now, in the face of the anthrax threat, he believes it can do the same thing
with anthrax spores.
'We are constantly filtering all kinds of bacteria through our
lungs,' explained Dr. Marcial-Vega. Normally, a healthy body is able to kill
off any dangerous bacteria on its own. But in the case of illness, like
pneumonia, or an especially lethal bacteria like anthrax, the body may need
some extra help.
Dr. Marcial-Vega says there are no concerns about using this
treatment because colloidal silver has no toxicity and no side effects. He has
used the colloidal silver nebulizer treatments on infants, the elderly, and
AIDS patients with pneumonia and has seen great results. All have responded
quickly to the treatment even when no other approach seemed to help, and no one
reported any adverse reactions.”
On
his web site, Dr.
Marcial-Vega explains more about how to nebulize colloidal silver:
“Nebulization-
Excellent for respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis.
Put 15 cc (two teaspoons) in the included receptacle, turn on the
machine and breathe deeply and slowly for approximately 15 minutes or until all
the liquid is gone. Repeat three times a day for colds, pneumonias, bronchitis
and sinusitis.
If it makes you cough too much, add 20-30 grains of sea salt to
the liquid just before nebulizing and shake.
This is a natural antibiotic that contains water and silver in a
colloidal suspension. It is effective against bacteria, viruses and fungi.”
-- Dr. Victor Marcial-Vega, M.D., former Clinical Assistant
Professor at the University of Miami School of Medicine from 1990 to 1994.
Unfortunately,
Dr. Marcial-Vega doesn’t state on his web site the specific concentration of
colloidal silver he uses when nebulizing colloidal silver.
But
from what I’ve read on the internet, most people who nebulize colloidal silver
are using between 5 ppm and 10 ppm, with some daring souls going as high as 20
ppm.
Use Caution
and Common Sense!
In
spite of Dr. Marcial-Vega’s comment that “no one reported any adverse
reactions” during the numerous times he’s used colloidal silver with a
nebulizer to treat various forms of pneumonia, you should always remember that
nebulizing colloidal silver is a HIGHLY EXPERIMENTAL procedure.
And
just because “no one reported” any adverse reactions during short terms of
treatment, doesn’t mean there won’t be any over the longer-term if inhalation
of colloidal silver is continued on a regular basis. As we now know, silver toxicity from excessive
intake and long-term accumulation can take years to show up.
I say that
because literally ZERO clinical safety studies have been conducted on this
method of treatment with colloidal silver.
In other words, in the short-term, nebulizing colloidal silver may be
perfectly safe. But in the long-term,
no one really knows what the cumulative effects of nebulizing tiny
silver particles directly into the soft tissues of the lungs may be.
Experimenting On Yourself…
This
is why I always state that if you intend to nebulize colloidal silver, you
should do so only with the clear and distinct understanding that you are
experimenting on yourself, and that
nebulizing excessively (and no one at this point knows what “excessively” is) might
produce negative consequences somewhere down the road.
Considering
this, it makes sense to conclude that if you decide to nebulize colloidal
silver you should limit your use of
nebulized colloidal silver to only those times when you feel it’s absolutely
necessary, such as for short periods of time during an upper respiratory
infection.
And
even then, proceed only with due caution and common sense, and preferably with
your doctor’s oversight.
Nebulizing
colloidal silver should NOT be done on a regular basis as a standard means of
consuming colloidal silver. Until
clinical research demonstrates otherwise, the potential risks are just too
great.
Perfectly
Safe?
I
know there are folks on the internet who say nebulizing colloidal silver as a
regular means of intake is “perfectly safe” as long as your colloidal silver is
made correctly.
There’s
even a gentleman who sells a conventional colloidal silver generator along with
a cheap nebulizer, who advocates the regular ongoing use of nebulized colloidal
silver.
But
do yourself a favor: Write and ask the advocates
of this process to show you a single
clinical study on humans demonstrating that regular, long-term use of nebulized
colloidal silver causes no harm to the lungs.
Be
sure to ask them to show evidence that nebulizing colloidal silver regularly
over long periods of time will not create argyria of the lungs, or harm the
cilia of the lungs. And finally, ask
them for proof that colloidal silver inhaled regularly over long periods of
time will not pass through the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in the brain.
They
won’t answer you, of course, because they have no such clinical evidence. They just continue to tout the same, tired
old canard that as long as the colloidal silver is “properly made,” there’s no
harm whatsoever no matter how of it much you nebulize, or how often.
But
remember, that’s exactly what was said by cavalier colloidal silver advocates about
argyria back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, i.e., “You can’t get argyria
as long as your colloidal silver is made correctly.”
Well,
a lot’s been learned since that time. We
now know that ongoing use of even the very highest quality colloidal
silver in the world can cause argyria and other toxicity problems if it is
used in excess, daily, for long periods of time.
Unfortunately,
it has taken nearly two decades -- and a number of unhappy argyria victims --
to come to this realization.
And
yet there are still people on the internet claiming you can drink as
much colloidal silver as you want on an ongoing basis and it "can't harm
you as long as it's properly made." Geesh.
My
fear is that eventually we're going to find out the same thing about nebulizing
colloidal silver regularly, over long periods of time, directly into the tender,
soft tissues of the lungs.
Maybe
this fear is an unfounded one. That’s quite possible. But to date no one has yet satisfactorily
allayed it with solid clinical evidence
that would prove otherwise. And I
certainly don’t want to be the first colloidal silver user with “blue lung
syndrome.”
Animal
Studies Demonstrate Problems
The
only two clinical safety studies I’m aware of
dealing with the inhalation of silver into the lungs were conducted on
laboratory rats.
Both
studies used laboratory engineered silver nanoparticles, rather than commercial
colloidal silver. But the idea of what
happens to silver when it’s inhaled daily into the lungs for long periods of
time is what was looked at.
The
first study was a 28 day study which concluded there was no significant long-term
harm to laboratory rats that were forced to inhale various levels of silver
nanoparticles for varying periods of time on a daily basis for four weeks. That’s definitely
good news. Very exciting!
The
second study, however, was conducted on rats over a period of 13 weeks (i.e.,
90 days). It concluded that there were “dose-dependent
increases in lesions related to silver nanoparticle exposure, including mixed
inflammatory cell infiltrate, chronic alveolar inflammation, and small
granulomatous lesions. Target organs for silver nanoparticles were
considered to be the lungs and liver in the male and female rats. No
observable adverse effect level of 100 μg/m3 is suggested from the
experiments.”
In
other words, at higher daily doses for longer periods of time there were significant
negative results including chronic inflammation of the alveolar, i.e., the
delicate air sacs deep within the lungs where oxygen is taken into the
bloodstream.
Also
observed by the researchers were increases in inflamed cells, and small
nodules, or tiny lumps of inflamed tissue. And silver nanoparticles apparently
accumulated in the lungs and liver of the rats.
Interestingly,
in this study there were no observable adverse effects at 100 ug/m3, or 100
micrograms of silver per cubic meter of air.
Once again, that’s at least somewhat
encouraging news because it indicates that when silver is inhaled daily, there apparently
are levels of silver inhalation which --
at least in the rat model -- are relatively safe even when used for weeks
on end. But beyond those levels significant
negative results were indeed observed.
The
study researchers wrote:
The results…indicated that lungs and liver were the major
target tissues for prolonged silver nanoparticle accumulation.
…Based on the test article–related effects (minimal bile-duct hyperplasia
in males and females, chronic alveolar inflammation and macrophage
accumulation in the lungs of males and females, and erythrocyte aggregation
in females) reported in this study, we found a NOAEL of 100 ug/m3.
…lung function changes previously reported from this study (Sung
et al., 2008) indicate significant physiological decreases in tidal volume for all dose levels in males and minute
volume decreases for all dose levels in females. The origin
of the difference in effects measurements remains to be resolved.
This
basically means that over the course of 90 days of inhaling the silver
nanoparticles each day, the tiny silver particles accumulated in the lungs and
livers of the rats.
What’s
more, the tiny air sacs in the lungs known as the alveoli became inflamed, and
as a result lung function was significantly
reduced. The reduction in lung
function was higher for male rats than it was for female rats in the study. The researchers don’t know why.
Finally,
macrophage accumulation in the lungs of these rats would seem to indicate the
body was attempting to remove foreign substances from the lungs, i.e., the accumulated
silver.
A
macrophage is a form of phagocyte. And a phagocyte is a cell, such as a white
blood cell, that engulfs and attempts to eliminate toxic substances, waste
material, harmful microorganisms, or other foreign materials in bodily tissues
as well as in the bloodstream.
Remember,
these rats were not sick. They were simply inhaling silver
nanoparticles. So there would have been
no reason for the body to send macrophages into the lungs except to remove
accumulated silver particles from the lung tissues.
This
is similar to what’s observed when people are exposed to inhalation of asbestos
on a chronic basis. The asbestos lodges
in the lungs. And the body sends in
macrophages whose job is to attempt to rid the area of the accumulated foreign
objects by engulfing them.
In
short, macrophages are the “clean-up crew” of the human body, and they’re only called in when there’s something to
clean up.
This
demonstrates pretty much beyond any shadow of a doubt that silver
particles, when inhaled regularly, over long periods of time, can become
embedded in the soft tissues of the lungs and cause a decrease in lung
function.
The Great
Unknown…
Now
let me emphasize these were animal studies, not
human studies. People are not rats
(well, most of them, anyway), and
therefore you cannot necessarily extrapolate a straight across correlation
between what happened to the rats, and what might happen to humans when
nebulizing colloidal silver every day for 90 days.
In
humans it could result in no damage to lung function at all…or less damage…or
significantly higher damage. We simply don’t know for sure because human studies have not been conducted. And really, that’s my entire point;
the long-term safety of inhaling silver into the lungs is simply unknown.
Also,
it’s important to note that these rats were exposed to what appear to be
ungodly levels of silver nanoparticles – up to six hours a day in an inhalation
chamber.
Even
the study authors admit the concentrations of silver nanoparticles used in this
animal study were “difficult to relate to human exposures.” That usually means they were excessive.
So
you can’t take the study as “proof positive” that inhaling silver directly into
the lungs each day for 90 days is going to be as harmful in humans as it was in
the rats.
But
then, when a person is nebulizing colloidal silver regularly, is there really
any way to know how much might be accumulating in the lungs over time?
Again,
that’s the problem. Without human clinical safety testing,
there’s no way to know for sure what’s going on when you nebulize colloidal
silver regularly. At what degree is it
safe? And at what degree is it
potentially harmful?
To
a reasonable observer, the study should confirm my hypothesis that nebulizing
colloidal silver is still a highly
experimental procedure with no significant human safety data behind it, and
that if undertaken, it should only be done so with much caution, on a limited
basis (if at all) until more is known.
Contraindicated
for Serious Lung Disease
Finally,
it’s very important to understand that nebulizing colloidal silver may actually
be contraindicated for some people
with certain serious lung conditions or diseases, or in late-stage COPD or
other conditions. So
always check with your bona-fide licensed medical practitioner before
nebulizing colloidal silver, particularly if you have a chronic lung disease of
any sorts.
Nebulizing
colloidal silver could actually cause a serious (and perhaps even fatal)
decrease in lung function for some people, under certain rare but very possible
conditions.
As
an article on SilverMedicine.org points out:
“If an individual is incredibly weak due to a severe lung
condition to the point that breathing is laborious, do NOT use a colloidal
silver oxygen nebulizer or humidifier without a fully qualified medical staff
present...It is possible that the first treatment could arrest the breathing of
the individual being treated.”
Finally, SilverMedicine.org warns never to inhale a silver product
that may have been combined with proteins, salts or other chemicals as it could
lead to silver poisoning. They don’t
give any citations for this claim, but it seems reasonable to take it into
consideration. In some forms, such as
silver nitrate and other silver salts, silver can be very caustic to any soft
tissues it comes into contact with.
Please Don’t
Shoot Me,
I’m Only the
Piano Player…
I
know some of the above opinions will leave me on the outs with many colloidal
silver advocates who see nebulizing colloidal silver on a regular basis as a safe
and highly effective way to get more silver directly into the bloodstream,
tissues and organs faster and more effectively than using colloidal silver
orally.
As
I’ve already pointed out, some colloidal silver advocates -- such as Dr. Victor
Marcial-Vega -- apparently even build the bulk of their upper respiratory
treatment program around nebulizing colloidal silver. (Which is fine, as
long as the nebulizing is stopped after the treatment proves to be either
successful or unsuccessful. It is the long-termdaily nebulizing of silver that appears to be potentially
problematic.)
And
as I’ve also pointed out, at least one colloidal silver generator manufacturer
has been building his entire program chiefly around nebulizing colloidal silver,
even supplying a cheap nebulizer with his generator and telling people the best
way to use colloidal silver is to inhale it directly into the lungs.
I
think this is potentially dangerous advice, however, because it encourages
people to nebulize colloidal silver as a matter of course, rather than
only occasionally, on an "as needed" basis, if at all.
In
my humble opinion, it is bordering on the irresponsible to recommend inhaling
colloidal silver into the lungs as a normal, everyday way to use colloidal silver. Doing so tends to negate the highly
experimental nature of the procedure, making it seem “mainstream” when indeed it
is clearly potentially dangerous until proven otherwise.
My Own
Nebulizer Usage
For
the record, I've personally nebulized colloidal silver for upper respiratory
infections, and generally to good effect. So
have other friends and family members.
Indeed, on several occasions over
the past 10 years nebulizing colloidal silver has kept my wife -- who suffers on
occasion with a swollen and infected voice box -- off the prednisone and
antibiotics the doctors like to prescribe.
But
as I’ve emphasized in this article, nebulizing colloidal silver is definitely not something I'd do on a regular
ongoing basis. Through reason and common sense, I recognize it's a highly
experimental procedure with very limited clinical testing behind it, and ZERO
human clinical safety data.
Indeed,
as I mentioned earlier there have been no human clinical safety studies
whatsoever. And as you’ve seen, the limited animal safety data available
indicates there’s at least a potential
for silver accumulation in the lungs and perhaps even harm to lung function if
silver is inhaled into the lungs on a regular daily basis over a period of
months.
And
therefore, as an experimental procedure, it’s something I would do only
gingerly and with great restraint, and with the clear understanding in mind
that should I make the choice to nebulize with colloidal silver, any negative
consequences to my body are my personal
responsibility.
After
all, knowing it’s experimental should help you understand that when you do it,
you’re experimenting on
yourself.
Again, I’m very conservative when it comes to nebulizing colloidal
silver. Some would say
overly-conservative. So be it. I think that’s the prudent course considering
the dramatic lack of human safety data available.
I
nebulize colloidal silver only when I
have an upper respiratory infection that feels like it’s about to get
out-of-control, or when I feel unusually congested, which is rare.
But
I don't overdo it. A couple or three minutes
at a time, three or four times a day, for a few days in a row, and I'm done. I
may not nebulize again for several months or even several years if I don’t have
any upper respiratory issues to deal with.
Now
that's just me. I'm not
"prescribing" anything here. I'm just reporting what I do. You have to make your own decisions and take personal
responsibility for them.
Other
people nebulize colloidal silver much more frequently than I ever would, and
longer per session, and to date I haven't heard of anyone having any negative consequences. But I always like to err
on the side of caution with something like this, until I can see some bona-fide
clinical research demonstrating human safety.
If It Ain’t
Workin’
Why Keep
Doing It?
Finally,
I feel it’s important to note that on the very few occasions over the past 10
years that I've nebulized colloidal silver for an upper respiratory condition, it
didn’t always work.
Sometimes
nebulizing colloidal silver was very
effective. And sometimes it was decidedly ineffective. But in every single case I’ve been able to
tell whether or not it was helping within
the very first day.
When
the procedure proved helpful I experienced rapid remission of the symptoms of
upper respiratory infection and was feeling quite well after using the
nebulizer for only two or three days, at most. And when it did not prove
helpful right away, continuing the treatment for additional days did not result
in any discernible improvement whatsoever.
This
demonstrates to me that when it works, nebulizing colloidal silver is a very
effective treatment that does not need to be carried on for weeks or months at
a time. And when it doesn’t work, continuing to nebulize colloidal silver
is…well…unnecessary and potentially obsessive.
Indeed,
if there's no sign of relief in the first few days of nebulizing, I simply
recognize it's not helping and I stop using the nebulizer and switch to some
other natural health protocol. Or go see my doctor if necessary.
Or,
if I get some symptomatic relief, but after two or three days of nebulizing it
begins to look like the only way I can maintain
the symptomatic relief is to keep nebulizing indefinitely on an ongoing basis, then
for the sake of safety I quit nebulizing altogether and choose another route,
i.e., some other natural health protocol, or even go to the doctor and take the
darned antibiotic drugs if I have to.
Responsible
v/s Irresponsible Behavior
I’m
simply not willing to risk nebulizing colloidal silver for long periods of
time, considering the fact that nobody knows for sure whether or not there's a
potentially cumulative negative
effect on the lungs from the tiny silver particles.
For
me, the bottom line is that no one really knows if the tiny silver particles
being inhaled into the soft tissues of the lungs daily, for long periods of
time, can ultimately become embedded in the lungs just like they do in other parts
of the body when used to excess.
So
if you’re nebulizing colloidal silver for weeks and months at a time to keep a
health condition under control, please consider that you may well be engaging
in obsessiveand irresponsible behavior.
Hey,
it’s your health and well-being that’s at stake. So I’m not telling you what to do. And again, I’m not “prescribing” here, I’m
only reporting, and I’m pointing out
what I feel is abundantly obvious for those with wisdom, common sense and
discretion.
I’ll
write more on this topic again in the future, particularly if new studies come
out demonstrating the safety (or lack thereof) of nebulizing colloidal
silver.
In
the meantime, I remain…
Yours for the
safe, sane and responsible use of
colloidal silver,
Important Note and
Disclaimer: The contents of this Ezine have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and
reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and
reliability thereof. The author, Steve
Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience
writing professionally about natural health topics. He is not
a doctor. Therefore, nothing stated in
this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of
this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical
advice. Nothing reported herein is
intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The author is simply reporting in
journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of
journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage. Therefore, the information and data presented
should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with
caution. Readers should verify for
themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources
such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas,
conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein. All important health care decisions should be
made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and
experienced health care professional.
Readers are solely responsible for their choices. The author and publisher disclaim
responsibility or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a
result of the use or application of any information included in this Ezine.
Copyright
2012 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ
85380-1239 | All rights reserved
I'm Steve Barwick, author of the Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual and guest star of the 60-Minute Colloidal Silver Secrets Video. I created this blog to help you learn more about the amazing healing and infection-fighting qualities of colloidal silver -- the world's most powerful natural antibiotic! Get FREE tips on healing with colloidal silver, and a FREE Colloidal Silver Safe Dosage Report at the link directly below...
Click the photo to learn more about this inexpensive and revealing, 60-minute studio-quality video that teaches you how to use colloidal silver safely and effectively!
Colloidal Silver Book
Click on the photo and learn more about The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual -- now the world's #1 bestselling book on colloidal silver and its usage; newly updated 547-pages in 40 in-depth chapters, including three full chapters on specific dosages for specific diseases. Learn how to use the world's most powerful natural antibiotic to keep your family healthy and infection-free!
Make Colloidal Silver!
Click on the photo and learn how you can save $100 on the new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator and start making all of the high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver you could ever need for a fraction of the price of health food store brands -- only 36 cents per quart batch!
Steve Barwick is a noted natural health journalist with hundreds of published articles to his credit over the past 30 years.
He is also the author, co-author or editor of five books on natural health and survivalist topics, and is currently working on five additional books.
For the past 13 years he has been an enthusiastic advocate of the responsible use of colloidal silver. He is also a strong proponent of taking personal responsibility for one's own health and well-being, particularly through proper nutrition and natural health.
Barwick is also known as the resident colloidal silver advocate at www.TheSilverEdge.com.
And he is the featured guest star of the newly released Colloidal Silver Secrets video, now available inexpensively in DVD format at www.ColloidalSilverSecretsVideo.com.
His 547-page book, The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual, is the world's bestselling book on colloidal silver and its usage. Learn more at www.UltimateColloidalSilverManual.com.
You can also follow Steve on the Colloidal Silver Secrets Community on Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Steve-Barwicks-Colloidal-Silver-Secrets-Community/182851985101064
All posts to this blog copyright 2009 by Life & Health Research Group, LLC, PO Box 1239, Peoria, AZ 85380. No reproduction without the expressed written permission of the publisher.
Disclaimer
Important: The information on this blog has not been reviewed or approved of by the FDA. Nor is it intended to provide medical advice, or be "prescriptive" in any way. It is merely a journalistic account of what we have learned about colloidal silver and its usage from the existing literaure, from personal experience, and from interviews with over 2,000 experienced colloidal silver users over the course of the past 12 years. The information on this blog is not meant to be the "final word" on colloidal silver usage by any stretch of the imagination. The information is from sources deemed to be accurate and reliable, but no guarantees of accuracy or reliability are hereby expressed or implied. Therefore, readers are urged to perform their own due diligence. When dealing with medical conditions, always consult with your licensed and trusted medical professional.
Posts
