Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Global Environmental Campaign to Ban Antimicrobial Silver


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…

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

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,


Helpful Links:

                                                                                                                                                 
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

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles Non-Toxic to Animals Even at 5,000 PPM!

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…

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

Several weeks ago in an article titled New 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,


Helpful Links:

                                                                                                                                                 
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

Monday, May 21, 2012

Scientist Admonishes Nanosilver Researchers to “Do Good Science”

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? 

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

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.”

But what most people don’t realize is that nanosilver has been used commercially for over 120 years in swimming pools, aquariums, and public drinking water systems

It’s even been used for decades on cruise ships and ocean liners to disinfect drinking water.


Heck, it’s even been used on the Space Shuttle

What’s more, recent research demonstrates that nature makes its own nanosilver on a regular basis, and is indeed earth’s most prolific producer of silver nanoparticles. 

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,


P.S.  For more great articles on colloidal silver, be sure to view the articles at www.ColloidalSilverUpdate.com

Or join us on the Colloidal Silver Secrets Community on Facebook for regular daily updates on colloidal silver and its usage.

Helpful Links:

                                                                                                                                                 
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

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Using Colloidal Silver With a Nebulizer



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…

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

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-term daily 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. 

When I nebulize, I use only 5 to 10 ppm colloidal silver made with a Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from TheSilveredge.com.

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 obsessive and 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,


Helpful Links:

                                                                                                                                                  
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