Ahh…the anti-silver
propagandists are at it again, and as usual, silver nanoparticles are the
victim of their smears. This time, they’re
claiming evil silver nanoparticles are invading your fruits and veggies, and
posing a dire threat to human existence as a result.
But don’t worry! Researchers have figured out a way to
“detect, characterize and quantify” the silver nanoparticles in your apples,
pears, squash and tomatoes, which apparently is supposed to make you sleep better
at night, though I can’t for the life of me figure out how or why…
Here’s what you need
to know about the latest sensationalistic scare tactics being promulgated by
the anti-silver crowd…
Hi, Steve Barwick here, for TheSilverEdge.com...
Would you like to see a case study demonstrating how raw propaganda against antimicrobial silver gets started, and then spreads like wildfire until it’s exaggerated all out of proportion in virtually every news source its reported in?
Here’s a great example:
An August 24, 2013 news article
by the website Disclose.tv discusses
a new study titled “Detection of Engineered Silver Nanoparticle Contamination
in Pears.”
The article paraphrases the study as claiming that that
“farmers have used silver nanoparticles as a pesticide because of their
capability to suppress the growth of harmful organisms.”
What’s more, according to the article, these evil silver
nanoparticles are now in a position to penetrate through the skin of food crops
and end up in your body where they could potentially wreak havoc and cause
untold damage to your health and well-being.
Sigh.
Truth Revealed?
What’s fascinating to me is that the tagline for the Disclose.tv website is “Truth
Revealed.” In other words, they set
themselves up as the place to come for “truth.”
But are their contentions about silver nanoparticles
truthful? Or are they speculative, sensationalistic
and hyperbolic? Worse yet, are they purely
propagandistic?
I’ll leave the answers to those questions up to you as we
examine the article, key paragraph by key paragraph, below. And I’ll give my humble layman’s opinions as
we examine what they have to say.
The text from the Disclose.tv
news article will be in italics, below, and will be indented, so you can easily
identify it. And my admittedly
opinionated comments will follow each indented section in regular type.
So here’s what Disclose.tv wrote, and what I have to say
about it:
August
24, 2013 - Over the last few years, the use of nanomaterials for water
treatment, food packaging, pesticides, cosmetics and other industries
has increased. For example, farmers have used silver nanoparticles as a
pesticide because of their capability to suppress the growth of harmful
organisms.
This is just the first half
of their very first paragraph. Note that
it very cleverly mixes two different topics, i.e., the “use of nanomaterials”
for a wide variety of commercial purposes, and the use of “silver nanoparticles
as a pesticide.”
As you can clearly see, the juxtaposition of these two
claims is designed to leave the distinct impression in the minds of their
readers that the use of silver nanoparticles has increased over the past few
years.
But what’s the truth?
It is this:
While the use of “nanomaterials”
may indeed have increased over the last few years (there are approximately 286
known commercial “nanomaterials” other than silver, according to this
website), in that very same time-frame the use of silver nanoparticles in
commercial applications has actually dramatically decreased.
That’s because the EPA was sued back in 2008 by a handful of
radical, anti-silver environmental groups who demanded the agency’s archaic
FIFRA (i.e., Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) regulations be
used against manufacturers who were incorporating silver nanoparticles into a
variety of consumer products.
And after being sued, the EPA caved in, making it mandatory
for U.S. companies to “register” any product containing silver nanoparticles if
it’s being advertised for its antimicrobial purposes.
And to add insult to injury, the EPA began laying huge
fines, often to the tune of hundreds of
thousands of dollars against companies who had failed to register their
commercial nanosilver products.
As a result, most U.S. manufacturers either quit making
products that contained antimicrobial silver, or quit selling those products in
the U.S. See here,
here,
here, here
and here to
get an idea of the scorched earth campaign the EPA conducted against companies
that were selling consumer goods infused with silver nanoparticles.
Finally, as I detailed in my
previous article titled, “How Environmentalists Are Destroying the Market
for Antimicrobial Silver,” the EPA then instituted a staggering and costly
array of environmental studies all manufacturers of commercial nanosilver
products must conduct – at their own expenses -- in order to bring to market a
nanosilver-related product.
This includes toxicity studies such as fish toxicity, bird
toxicity, algal toxicity, human toxicity, inhalation toxicity, dermal toxicity,
repeated dose toxicity, environmental toxicity, genetic toxicity as well as
“environmental fate” toxicity tests and a host of other studies too numerous to
mention here, but which you can read about in detail in my above-linked
article.
The bottom line is ever since the environmentalists sued the
EPA over nanosilver in 2008, the EPA has instituted stringent new regulatory
policies that have virtually choked off the manufacture of consumer goods
containing silver nanoparticles.
No Documentation for
Groundless Claims
So the implication that silver nanoparticles are so
ubiquitous throughout the environment that they’re now working their way into
fruits and veggies is absolutely groundless.
And if you’ll look closely, you see that no documentation or
reference whatsoever is given for the claim that farmers are using silver
nanoparticles on their crops as a “pesticide.”
The contention is just stated as “truth,” without any corroborating detail.
And of course, this leaves the distinct impression that farmers
everywhere are drenching their crops in silver nanoparticles in an effort to
stop the proliferation of pests. But once
again, what’s the actual truth?
Studied, But Not Yet Approved
Nanosilver use in agriculture food crops is indeed being studied, because the toxic chemicals
used to eradicate pathogens harmful to crop growth are becoming less and less
effective, yet their toxicity to the environment remains high.
But it is not yet lawful
to use nanosilver on crops. It is merely
in the “study” stage. See, for example,
the 2011 USDA study proposal at this
link, titled “Silver Nanoparticles as Pesticide for Agricultural
Applications.”
So the very premise
of the article, which is apparently also the premise of the study being
discussed (see abstract here) is quite erroneous at face value.
So, how is Disclose.tv
doing so far, in terms of revealing the “truth”?
Keep in mind, this is only the first half of the very first paragraph
of their news article. And the way I see
it, they’ve already made two statements that leave a decidedly false picture in
the minds of their readers. But if you
think they’re not doing so good in the truth department, wait until you see the
rest of their claims and contentions.
Here’s the second half of their first paragraph:
However,
a growing concern is that these particles could pose a potential health risk to
humans and the environment. In a new study, researchers at the University of
Missouri have developed a reliable method for detecting silver
nanoparticles in fresh produce and other food products.
Note once again the clever juxtaposition of two different
topics. First, the claim that there’s
“growing concern” that silver particles “could pose a potential health risk to
humans and the environment.”
Then we’re treated to the fact that University of Missouri
researchers have developed a “reliable method for detecting silver
nanoparticles in fresh produce and other food products.”
Once again, the reader is very cleverly led to believe that
the use of silver nanoparticles either in agriculture or by manufacturers of
consumer products is so widespread that fresh produce and other food products are
being contaminated, which in turn, it is inferred, could harm humans as well as
the environment.
But notice there is still not a single shred of evidence or documentation presented for any of these speculative and
sensationalistic contentions. They’re
just skillfully strung together to make the reader conclude there’s a serious
problem.
Let’s move on to the next key paragraph of the Disclose.tv news article. Remember, this is being set forth at “truth”
to their readers…
"More
than 1,000 products on the market are nanotechnology-based products," said
Mengshi Lin, associate professor of food science in the MU College of
Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. "This is a concern
because we do not know the toxicity of the nanoparticles. Our goal is to
detect, identify and quantify these nanoparticles in food and food products and
study their toxicity as soon as possible."
Now the Disclose.tv
news article quotes an “associate professor of food science” as breathlessly
claiming there are “more than 1,000 nanotechnology-based products,” on the
market. And that “we do not know the
toxicity of nanoparticles.”
He then states, with equal urgency, that the goal of their
research is to “detect, identify and quantify these nanoparticles in food
products,” and additionally, to “study their toxicity as soon as possible.”
A very worthy endeavor, I think you’ll agree! And this might be the most truthful statement
in the entire news article. You see, that’s
because researchers really don’t know
if nanoparticles are toxic. They’re just
guessing.
Indeed, environmental researchers have been looking for
toxicity in nanomaterials for the last ten years or longer, and they still can’t find any, though they’ve
written innumerable sensationalistic articles and press releases claiming these
materials are “potentially toxic” or “may be toxic.”
But once again, the way this article is so cleverly written,
the readers is left with the distinct impression that nanoparticle toxicity is
a given fact, and that silver
nanoparticles are the main culprit.
However, the reality is far from it.
Here’s the truth: According to Dr. Alan G.B. Lansdown, author of the definitive textbook for doctors, Silver in Healthcare: Its Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety in Use, “...there is very little substantive evidence that silver acts either as a cumulative poison in the human body like lead and mercury, or that it reaches toxic levels in any tissue.”
Here’s the truth: According to Dr. Alan G.B. Lansdown, author of the definitive textbook for doctors, Silver in Healthcare: Its Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety in Use, “...there is very little substantive evidence that silver acts either as a cumulative poison in the human body like lead and mercury, or that it reaches toxic levels in any tissue.”
Indeed, to date, there’s no reliable scientific or medical
data that anyone’s ever been harmed
by the use of nanosilver or any other kind of nanomaterials in any commercial
products.
So this is literally one of the most dishonest and
disingenuous pieces of journalism ever written, in my humble opinion. And I’d love
to know who reviewed and edited this piece for Disclose.tv. They should
either be fired for gross incompetence, or given a raise for masterful
propaganda production.
The “Contaminated”
Pears
Next key paragraph:
Lin
and his colleagues, including MU scientists Azlin Mustapha and Bongkosh
Vardhanabhuti, studied the residue and penetration of silver nanoparticles on
pear skin.
First,
the scientists immersed the pears in a silver nanoparticle solution similar to
pesticide application. The pears were then washed and rinsed repeatedly.
Results
showed that four days after the treatment and rinsing, silver nanoparticles
were still attached to the skin, and the smaller particles were able to
penetrate the skin and reach the pear pulp.
OMG! The researcher
discovered that if you soak a pear in “a silver nanoparticle solution” and then
wash and rinse it (“repeatedly,” no
less) and come back four days later, there will still be silver nanoparticles
attached to the skin. Alert the
media! (Oh, wait, I guess they did.)
My question: How many
U.S. pear farmers are “immersing” their pears in a solution of silver
nanoparticles? Can you name even one?
The Disclose.tv news article
certainly doesn’t.
This reminds me of the infamous “Fathead Minnow” study, in
which researchers soaked poor little Fathead Minnows in a silver nanoparticle
solution, afterwards examining the fish and finding cellular
abnormalities. The screaming headlines
for several weeks read “Silver Nanoparticles Toxic to Fish.”
Problem was, you can’t find a river, lake, stream or pond in
all of America composed of anywhere near the levels of silver nanoparticles
used on that study. On the other hand,
the world’s oceans contain literally millions
of tons of trace silver, and they are absolutely teaming with fish and
other wildlife species.
Now, this new study claims that when pears were “immersed”
in a “silver nanoparticle solution similar to pesticide application” some of
the silver stuck tenaciously to the pears, and some even penetrated the skin of
the pears. Horror of horrors, right?
How much silver was “still attached to the skin” isn’t
disclosed by the article, of course. But we know from the Dartmouth University Toxic Metals
program that humans routinely take in as much as 88 micrograms of silver per
day, much of it from diet, and that the human body has such an effective
mechanism for eliminating silver that 99% of it is “readily excreted from the
body”.
According to Dartmouth University researchers:
"Trace
amounts of silver are in the bodies of all humans and animals. We normally take
in between 70 and 88 micrograms of silver a day, half of that amount from our
diet. Humans have evolved with efficient methods of dealing with that intake,
however. Over 99 percent is readily excreted from the body.
Is
silver harmful to humans? Unlike other metals such as lead and mercury, silver
is not toxic to humans and is not known to cause cancer, reproductive or
neurological damage, or other chronic adverse effects."
--
Dartmouth University Toxic Metals Research Program
So my question is, why isn’t Disclose.tv disclosing this well-known fact to its
readers, so they might enjoy some relevant scientific context through
which to view the hyperbolic claims being made in their own article?
Oh, wait. That would
be fair and balanced, wouldn’t it? Can’t
have that, can we? It’s sensationalism
that sells. Not balance. Certainly not fairness.
The Disclose.tv
article goes on to state:
"The
penetration of silver nanoparticles is dangerous to consumers because they have
the ability to relocate in the human body after digestion," Lin said. “Therefore,
smaller nanoparticles may be more harmful to consumers than larger
counterparts."
Please note the double-minded nature of the above
statements. The first half of the
statement conclusively tells us “penetration of silver nanoparticles is
dangerous” – apparently, no ifs, ands or buts about it. The second half of the statement says
“smaller nanoparticles may be more
harmful to consumers than larger counterparts.”
No evidence is presented for either statement. No documentation whatsoever. In other words, once again, they’re simply
making stuff up. And covering their
rears with weasel words like “may be,” for those readers astute enough to
question the researcher’s obvious bias.
But this is the key:
The average reader is left
with the distinct impression that silver at any level is toxic to humans…that
small silver particles (i.e. silver nanoparticles) are more toxic to humans
than others…and that farmers are slathering this stuff all over their crops – decidedly
disingenuous assertions on all counts. Indeed,
there is not a single shred of evidence for these assertions. What an article, right?
Next key paragraph:
When
ingested, nanoparticles pass into the blood and lymph system, circulate through
the body and reach potentially sensitive sites such as the spleen, brain, liver
and heart.
Once again, it sounds very ominous, doesn’t it? But note here, too, there is no documentation
whatsoever provided for these assertions.
They’re not even in quotes, so they appear to be interjected by the
writer of the article, rather than the researcher of the “pear” study.
The implication, of course, is that once silver circulates
through the body it gets stuck in “sensitive sites such as the spleen, brain,
liver and heart.” But where’s the
evidence for this? Why is there no
documentation?
As pointed out earlier, the Dartmouth University Toxic
Metals program found that “over 99 percent [of ingested silver] is readily
excreted from the body” and that “silver is not toxic to humans and is not
known to cause cancer, reproductive or neurological damage, or other chronic
adverse effects”.
And in his textbook for doctors, Silver in Healthcare: Its
Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety in Use, Dr. Alan G.B. Lansdown states,
““Contrary to statements that all forms of silver are cumulative once they
enter body tissues and that very little is excreted, silver is actively
metabolized in the human body and a large part eliminated eventually via the
liver and urine.”
Finally, animal studies have demonstrated virtually ZERO
toxicity for silver nanoparticles, even when astonishingly high dosages have
been given to the test animals. For
example, see “New
Research: Silver Nanoparticles Not Toxic” at this link, and “Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles Non-Toxic to Animals Even at 5,000
PPM!” at this link.
Why So Scary?
So, why so scary?
I’ll tell you why.
It’s because the article is strictly agenda-driven; it was written with
a preconceived editorial goal in mind, and that goal is to scare readers into
believing silver nanoparticles are one of the most toxic substances on the face
of the earth, and of course, that they’re invading our fruits and veggies, when
of course, they’re simply not.
Next key paragraph:
The
growing trend to use other types of nanoparticles has revolutionized the food
industry by enhancing flavors, improving supplement delivery, keeping food
fresh longer and brightening the colors of food. However, researchers worry
that the use of silver nanoparticles could harm the human body.
Ahh…now we see the bias peeking through the sensationalism
and obfuscation just a little bit more. “Nanoparticles”
are suddenly deemed to be good
developments. Not just good, but revolutionary developments!
But not silver
nanoparticles. They’re quite evil. They don’t have any evidence, of course. You’re just supposed to trust them. After
all, they wrote it down in a study, and people wrote articles about it, and
quoted it. And in the immortal words of
late night TV host Craig Ferguson, “If
it’s writ down, it must be true!”
You’ll note, of course, that once again no evidence
whatsoever is presented for these contentions by the author of the article. Just the idea that researchers “worry” about
silver nanopartilces -- apparently night and day.
That’s a classic propaganda technique designed to impart
fear into a target audience without presenting any evidence of validity. Just state that “researchers worry” and
gullible readers will pick up the cue and start wringing their hands in quiet
unison.
“Oh, my God, there’s
silver nanoparticles infiltrating their way into my pears, and they’ll probably
end up crawling into my brain, spleen, liver and heart. We must immediately stop this evil conspiracy
to turn me into a precious metal repository (before anyone figures out we don’t
have any evidence whatsoever for our hysterical contentions).”
The Truth is Quite
Revealing
So what’s the truth?
Are silver nanoparticles really
toxic to crop plants?
I find it interesting that in a study published
in the March 2010 issue of the journal Mycobiology,
researchers found that applying varying levels of silver nanoparticles to the
roots of green onion plants completely eradicated fungal infections known to
destroy the plants.
Not only did the application of silver nanoparticles destroy
the pathogenic plant fungus, but according to the study authors, it caused no
harm whatsoever to beneficial soil microbes needed by the green onion plants
for growth. Nor was there any negative
change in the soil chemistry or composition.
What’s more, the nanosilver-treated green onion plants, once
harvested, were demonstrated to have grown
larger and to weigh more than the
non-treated green onion plants. The
researchers also pointed out that the more nanosilver they applied to the green onion plants, the lower the absorption levels into the plants became.
The researchers stated, “When
the amount of nano-silver was calculated in the plants grown in nano-silver
treated soil, it was found that the concentration of nano-silver used for
treatment and the concentration of nano-silver found in the plants was
inversely proportional.”
In other words, contrary to the shrill concerns of the
anti-silver environmentalists who claim silver will build up in crops to toxic
levels, the plants themselves actually reduced
their absorption of the nanosilver when higher levels were applied!
The conclusion drawn by the study published in Mycobiology
was staggering in its implications:
“Nano-silver liquid for the prevention of various plant pathogenic fungi
is highly recommended to farmers. Additionally,
the use of nano-silver does not cause any harm to human beings, and it is safe
for the environment and agricultural products.
In
conclusion, we can say that by using nano-silver liquid, environmental
pollution and the excessive use of chemical compounds in the field can be
reduced. It is expected that the
application of nano-silver at low concentrations will be economic, eco
friendly, and decrease farm management costs.”
In other words, contrary to the hyperbolic and
sensationalistic cries of the anti-silver environmentalists, the use of
nanosilver on crops, if it is ever approved by the FDA or USDA:
A.) will not only save money by economically
reducing crop loss caused by plant blight, and by decreasing the need for
specialized farm management), but also…
B.) will increase crop yields by
boosting the size and weight of the treated crops, and…
C.) will eliminate the need for many
of the toxic chemicals used by farmers for pathogen control, and that can harm
the environment
In short, the use of nanosilver on farm crops is actually an
economically beneficial, yield-boosting and eco-friendly green idea! So I say, bring
it on. It’s time we actually implement
the idea, and put the darned naysayers to shame with the results!
How Anti-Silver
Propaganda Is Spread
So there you have the truth.
But have you heard even a peep about this positive study from the news
media?
Nope. Instead, a wide
variety of online news sources have picked up on the sensationalistic story about
the “nanosilver pears” study, which of course implies the world is about to
come to an end thanks to the (alleged) presence of nanosilver in our fruits and
veggies.
What’s more, virtually every single one of the articles
being published on the “nanosilver pears” study exaggerates its findings out of
all proportions. For example:
- The Examiner.com website picked up on the story, and posted an article titled “Too many toxic silver nanoparticles are on your vegetables and fruits.” Of course, the study never stated there were “too many toxic silver nanoparticles in fruits and veggies.” The writer of the story just made that up.
- PreventDisease.com also picked up on the story, and posted an article titled “Silver Nanoparticle Pesticides Now Used By Farmers Cannot Be Washed Off And Pass Into The Lymph and Blood Circulation.” Again, I ask, bring me one major agricultural producer who is currently slathering his crops with silver nanoparticles. I can’t find any. Can you? The entire headline was a great, big sensationalistic scare tactic.
- Even NaturalNews.com – usually a very good source of information on natural living – seems to have gotten swept up in the hysteria, publishing an article titled “Scientists Find Way to Detect Toxic Nanoparticles in Food, Risks Still Unclear.” They even warn their readers to avoid eating Pop Tarts, of all things, apparently due to the alleged potential of nanosilver being found in the fruit! (Which of course, there’s no evidence of.)
- Finally, even MSN News picked up the story, claiming in their article, “When Mengshi Lin and his colleagues doused pears in silver nanoparticles to mimic what happens on farms, some nanoparticles remained stuck on the pears for four days after repeated washing.” Problem is, of course, silver nanoparticles aren’t used on farms. It is simply not a USDA-approved or FDA-approved crop treatment. Once again, this is a very disingenuous tactic used to scare the general public into believing silver is somehow “toxic,” and our food is being slathered in it.
Even More Anti-Silver
Propaganda
What’s more, later permutations of the article about this
study which I’ve found on a variety of websites and blogs suddenly started
showing up containing a line that wasn’t present in earlier versions of the
articles. That newly introduced line reads:
“Over
200 agricultural pesticides contain nanosilver, which studies have shown to be
toxic to humans and the environment.”
Indeed, that statement is made in versions of the article
found on The Activist Post blog, the Practical Populism blog, the Coto Report
blog, the MultiPolar Future blog, the Global Elite blog, TheSleuthJournal.com
website, and more!
For example, see The Activist Post blog, here.
Not one of those
online resources credits that statement to anyone in particular, or even
remotely attempts to document the blatant assertion that “over 200 agricultural
products contain nanosilver…” Not a
single one.
So where does the statement actually come from?
Turns out, it apparently comes from a 2009 article
published on the BeyondPesticides.org website, which had absolutely nothing to do with agricultural
products.
Here’s the actual statement in a blog post from the Beyond
Pesticides website titled “Nanosilver: Regulatory Issues”:
“All pesticidal substances must be
registered with the EPA in accordance with the Federal Insecticide Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Under FIFRA, silver nanoparticles
meet the definition of a pesticide -- that is, as a substance that is intended
to disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or mitigate growth or development of
microbiological organisms.
As such, silver nanoparticles, with
their antimicrobial activity, should and must be regulated by the EPA as a
pesticide.
However, despite over 200
products being sold on the consumer marketplace, the EPA has done little to
regulate or evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts these
particles may cause.”
Do you see how the statement from the 2009 Beyond Pesticides
article suddenly morphed just enough to make it sound like modern agriculture is slathering their farm
products in nanosilver?
In reality, the 2009 article on the BeyondPesticides.org
website was talking about consumer
products that utilized nanosilver in their makeup – i.e., things like
computer keyboards, toothbrushes, telephone mouthpieces, and others in which
keeping germs to a bare minimum was the goal.
There’s not a word about agricultural
products in the entire article. But
because the word “pesticides” appears in it, someone apparently creatively
adopted the statement and applied it to agricultural products in the newer
articles on the “nanosilver pears” study.
This, my friends, is how a blatant propaganda campaign is
run, and how the internet is used to “juice” the story, blow it out of all
proportion, and spread it worldwide, regardless of how utterly improbable it
actually is.
And once again, the innocent victim is nanosilver. But what’s the real truth?
The
truth of the matter is that ingested silver has been found to be quite
harmless, as long as blatantly excessive levels are not ingested. Indeed, the
world’s first ever colloidal silver human ingestion safety study was conducted last year.
It was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. And the researchers found no toxicity
whatsoever from the ingestion of nanosilver.
And
cultures all over the world regularly ingest small amounts of silver as an
integral part of their diets, all with no harm whatsoever, as you can see in
the article “Is Silver a Toxic Heavy Metal?” at this link.
Your Thoughts?
So what do you
think? Did the Disclose.tv article live up to its self-described motto of
“Truth Revealed”? Or did they fail
miserably, in this particular case?
As I’ve
demonstrated in article after article after article after article, the anti-silver environmentalists have no problem using rank
propaganda and sensationalistic scare tactics to achieve their ultimate goal of
removing silver from the commercial marketplace (see, for example, “The Global
Environmental Campaign to Ban Antimicrobial Silver,” here).
Indeed, if you’ve
come this far, you’ve just read a textbook example demonstrating exactly how
they do it, in my humble opinion.
Learn More…
For
more great articles on colloidal silver and its astonishing healing and
infection-fighting benefits, see the Colloidal Silver Update page.
To
learn what the experts have to say the safety and effectiveness of colloidal
silver and other forms of antimicrobial silver, see the Expert Quotes on Colloidal Silver page of TheSilverEdge.com
website.
Read
over 100 clinical studies and white papers on the safety and effectiveness of
colloidal silver and other forms of antimicrobial silver, on the Clinical Studies page of TheSilverEdge.com website.
To
learn how to make your own high-quality, micro-particle colloidal silver, quickly and easily, in the comfort and privacy of your own
home, and for less than 36 cents a quart, just click the link in this
sentence.
Meanwhile,
I’ll be back next week with another great article on colloidal silver…
Yours for the safe, sane and responsible
use of colloidal silver,
Steve Barwick, author
The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual
The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual
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 and/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
2013 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ
85380-1239 | All rights reserved.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment