(Opinion) Swedish researchers are now claiming to have
demonstrated that nanosilver from commercial products (or even from bottled
colloidal silver products) can leach into human brain and eye cells and damage
them, causing blindness and brain damage.
Of course, what they
don’t tell the public is that their new research contradicts all of the major
studies on the cell-protective benefits of antimicrobial silver going back to
the 1970’s. It also contradicts the fact
that no cases of blindness or brain damage from exposure to normal
levels of silver have ever been reported in over 120 years.
What’s more, it’s
important to note that the Swedish study was conducted solely as test-tube
research, using cell line cultures from 7-week old aborted fetal tissues that were
artificially kept alive in a chemical growth medium. No real-life animal or human testing was
done, and therefore none of the body’s normal protective mechanisms were available
to the cells during the course of the study.
Here’s my take on how utterly
flawed the new Swedish clinical research is, and how truly disingenuous and
sensationalistic the conclusions being drawn by the Swedish researchers are…
The European press is claiming -- quite hysterically – that
the use of nanosilver in commercial products such as sports clothing,
silver-infused stockings or even bottled colloidal silver from your local
health food store -- will “make you go blind” and “can damage the brain in
humans.”
These sensationalistic claims are based on two new Swedish
clinical studies (see here and here) conducted
at Lund University in Sweden, one of which claims to have demonstrated that
silver nanoparticles are toxic to developing nerve cells from the brain, and
one of which claims to have demonstrated that silver nanoparticles are toxic to
nerve cells in the retina of the eye.
“I think it's insane
to take the silver,” says one of the study authors, Fredrik Johansson, in a
University of Lund press release. He
continues by saying:
“The
body spreads silver nanoparticles and ions through the blood. They take to the central nervous system, the
growth of cells deteriorate as the studies show…. it is clear that our human
cells are negatively affected by silver nanoparticles and silver ions.”
Make Me Laugh
Of course, I had to chuckle a bit after reading the above
quote. It reminded me of the old TV game
show called Make Me Laugh, in which a
comedian would stand in front of a contestant and say all kinds of silly things
in order to invoke laughter.
Johansson’s statement certainly made me laugh. After, all, I’ve been using colloidal silver
almost daily for nearly 20 years. And at
age 60, I recently passed a comprehensive vision tests at my doctor’s office,
which was conducted during a recent executive physical.
Sure, I have some of the normal vision problems of any 60
year old journalist who’s been staring at a computer screen for ten or twelve
hours a day for the past 21 years. I
have to wear reading glasses to see the fine print in some documents. But I
don’t need eye glasses for driving, or for other regular daily activities.
Nevertheless, reading through the wild and quite feverish
claims against silver coming from the authors of these two new Swedish studies,
you’d certainly think I should be completely blind from taking my daily dose of
colloidal silver every day over the past 20 years. At the very least, I should be exhibiting
major brain and nervous system damage if the Swedish researcher’s claims
against silver were actually true.
So the above quote from Swedish researcher Fredrick
Johansson struck me as being little more than rank sensationalism and
histrionics, rather than a true, science-based conclusion.
It’s very
disconcerting to see researchers make such unsubstantiated claims. And that’s what led me to take a closer look
at these two new Swedish studies.
What You’re Not Being
Told
What people are not
being told is that the findings from these two new studies completely
contradict numerous other clinical studies which have shown no harm whatsoever
to human or animal cells from exposure to normal levels of silver.
Indeed, quite the contrary, many clinical studies have even
found nanosilver to be both cell-protective,
and quite beneficial to cell growth, as well.
For example:
- The new Swedish studies contradict the long-standing
clinical work of Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D., who repeatedly found no damage to
human cells whatsoever when dispersing electrically-generated silver ions
directly into the cells and tissues of living human beings. Instead, he found
only cell-protective qualities, leading to rapid healing of damaged tissues
(see clinical study, here).
- The new Swedish studies contradict the work of clinical
researchers from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Barcelona (Department
of Cell Biology, Immunology and Neurosciences), who also recently demonstrated
that nanosilver has dramatic cell-protective
effects (see info on clinical study, here), particularly
on cells damaged by alcohol.
- The new Swedish studies also contradict the work
of clinical researchers from Hindu University in Varanasi, India, who found
that "nanoparticles do not confer any lytic
[i.e., cell-damaging – ED] effect on platelets,” but instead, prevented blood
cells from excessive clotting (see info on this study, here).
- What’s more, the two new Swedish studies
contradict the work of clinical researchers who use silver as a photographic
stain in fish embryos so they can better track and document changes in the
developing embryo. Yet the fish are not
born blind or brain damaged, even though they’re exposed to silver from embryo
to birth (see here).
And
finally, the two new Swedish studies contradict the work of animal researchers
who have found that silver in its elemental form as well as in its ionic form
can be used as an effective preservative and disinfectant for boar sperm, which
is used in artificial insemination of breeding sows.
In other words, small amounts of silver are added to the
boar sperm, which allows it to remain viable for longer periods of time before
being used to artificially inseminate a sow (female boar).
So if silver negatively affects the brain and eyes of developing
animals, you’d think by now the swine breeders would have noticed a lot of
blind and mentally defective piglets being born. But no.
It’s just not the case. (See more
on the use of silver to preserve boar sperm, here.)
The bottom line is that numerous clinical studies have
demonstrated silver’s protective
effects on cells – including sensitive cells such as sperm cells and developing
fish embryos.
Yet amazingly, the two new Swedish studies (both of which
were conducted by basically the same research team) contradict the positive
findings of virtually all of those
previous studies.
Flawed Foundation
So how could the Swedish researchers have arrived at
conclusions that contradict the work of so many other silver researchers?
Turns out, the foundational ideas behind the two new Swedish
were flawed from the very beginning. And
of course, whenever the foundation is
flawed, so the results will be flawed,
as well.
For example, one of the foundational claims the Swedish researchers make is that
nanosilver can penetrate the blood brain barrier and harm brain cells. This of course, is simply not true.
Even Britain’s top expert on the medical use of nanosilver,
Alan B.G. Lansdown, author of “Silver in Healthcare: Its Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety in
Use,” has admitted there is no evidence that silver, used in normal amounts,
can penetrate the blood-brain barrier, stating:
“Case
reports have occasionally stated that silver is deposited in brain and
neurological tissues and that it is a cause of certain neurological
changes.
But
critical evaluation of these and other studies indicate that silver is not
absorbed into neurological tissues but becomes bound in lysosomal vacuoles of
the blood-brain barrier and in the blood-cerebrospinal fluid (SDF)
barrier.”
-- Silver in Healthcare: Its
Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety in Use, by Alan B. G. Lansdown, pg. 60
In other words, when the studies claiming silver passes the
blood brain barrier are properly examined and parsed, what’s found is that the
body’s protective mechanisms designed to prevent harm to the brain and nervous
system from outside substances actually work quite well.
The silver, far from actually breaching the blood brain
barrier or the cerebrospinal fluid barrier, becomes trapped and bound by
lysosomal vacuoles (i.e., cell organelles that contain special enzymes needed
for breaking down biomolecules and cellular debris).
Once the silver particles are trapped and prevented from
reaching the blood brain barrier or the cerebro-spinal fluid barrier, the body
then works to break down the trapped silver and eliminate it.
So contrary to the wishful thinking of the Swedish
researchers, nanosilver is not
deposited into brain tissue, nor is it the cause of neurological issues. It does not cross the blood brain barrier to
effect brain cells, nor does it cross the blood cerebrospinal fluid barrier to
affect nerve cells.
This basically makes the results of the two new Swedish
studies null and void, since they’re based on the idea that silver can
penetrate the blood brain barrier and make its way into the brain, negatively affecting
developing neural cells as well as damaging developing retinal cells.
The authors of the two new Swedish studies apparently didn’t
know that silver has never been proven to cross the blood brain barrier. Or, perhaps they chose to leave that critical
information out of their study so they could more effectively scare the bejabbers
out of the general public.
Based on the over-the-top, scare-mongering press releases
being issued to the news media by the Swedish researchers, I’d have to say the
second option above is the correct one.
But let’s take a closer look at another of the foundational assertions
of these two new Swedish studies:
Cell Death, or Cell
Proliferation?
The authors of the new Swedish studies also claim exposure
to nanosilver can lead to cell death.
But as Lansdown has pointed out in “Silver in Healthcare: Its Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety in
Use,” far from causing cell death, nanosilver actually promotes the
proliferation and maturation of cells – particularly in wounds.
Yes, silver has long been known to stimulate cell growth, not cause cell death. In fact, Lansdown points out that:
“Topically
applied silver was shown to induce and bind metallothioneins I and II in the
cytosol of metabolically active cells in the wound margin.
Increased
metallothioneins in metabolically active cells favours the uptake of trace
metals including zinc and copper, which in turn promote RNA and DNA synthetases
leading to cell proliferation and maturation.
There
is clinical and experimental evidence to show that topical application of
dilute silver nitrate, silver sulfadiazine and the various sustained
silver-release wound dressings to acute and chronic skin wounds promotes
healing…
…Other
metabolic changes seen in the skin following topical silver application include
induction of epidermal growth factor (EGF), a critical factor in the wound
healing cascade.”
-- Silver in Healthcare: Its
Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety in Use, by Alan B. G. Lansdown, pg. 61
In other words, rather than damaging or killing cells,
nanosilver used in normal amounts actually promotes healing of wounds by
causing healthy new cells to proliferate and mature, thereby causing wounds to
heal faster and more efficiently.
The Swedish researchers even contradict the Dartmouth
University Toxic Metals Research Program, which found that silver ingested
within normal amounts was not toxic to humans.
According to the researchers behind the Toxic Metals
Research Program at Dartmouth:
“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."
Claims with
No Substance
What’s more, the study authors make the following spurious claim
regarding the cell line used in their two new studies:
“The cell line can be regarded as model of a developing brain, since the
cells originate from forebrain tissue, obtained from one 7-week
(post-conception) human embryo and are grown as a so-called neurosphere culture.”
In other words, they Swedish researchers are claiming that a
single cell line from the brain tissue of a 7-week old aborted baby, can serve
in research as a model for a developing brain.
Yet as one independent researcher pointed out after
reviewing the first of the two Swedish studies, “If it’s a cell line, then by
definition it’s a single type of cell
and therefore cannot under any circumstances be considered a valid ‘model for a
developing brain.’”
Indeed, there are multitudes
more cell types than just retinal neural cells involved in brain development
and growth. Plus, in real-life brain
development, there’s also the germinal matrix, which includes a variety of cell
types, plus a network of arteries, veins and capillaries feeding those cells.
There’s also metalloproteins that protect and stimulate
neuronal cells inside of developing brains, and help them reach full, long-term
potentiation. And there’s much more, to
boot.
So, of course, you can’t duplicate the brain’s germinal
matrix in a test tube. Nor in a test
tube can you have arteries, veins and capillaries bring blood flow, oxygen and
nutrients to the cells. And you won’t
find in a test tube any of the metalloproteins and other substances the body
uses to help protect and stimulate cell growth.
So to claim that a single cell type being kept artificially
alive in a test tube is even remotely the equivalent of a ‘developing brain’ is
ludicrous at face value.
Again, when the very foundation of a study is shaky, quite
inevitably so are the results.
The Problem with
Neurospheres
The Swedish researchers used neurospheres in this study,
which are essentially free-floating clusters
of neural stem cells taken from aborted fetus tissue. They claim these neurospheres allow them to “model”
a 3D neural system under development.
But as other independent researchers have pointed out, the
use of neurospheres in test tubes is not a good model for a 3D neural system
under development, because
a.) no other types of brain cells
are present,
b.) there’s no blood supply to the
cells and tissues, and
c.) there’s no protective matrix
In other words, brain cells don’t develop in a vacuum. In a live body, there’s a variety of
different types of cells growing and interacting with each other, and a complex
variety of biological processes taking place that, once again, simply cannot be
duplicated in a test tube.
So for the Swedish researchers to claim these retinal cell
neurospheres – clusters of neural stem cells taken from an aborted baby’s brain
-- are a good test tube “model” for a developing neural system is disingenuous
at best, and purposefully deceptive at worst.
What’s more, previous studies have shown that when
neurospheres are used in test tube studies, cells have been demonstrated to die
in larger neurospheres simply due to the size of the neurosphere, with no other
external factors involved.
Indeed, previous studies have demonstrated that while
smaller neurospheres are more stable and the cells stay alive longer, it’s
quite typical in larger neurospheres for cell death to start taking place at the very core of the neurosphere where
cells are more highly concentrated and competition for oxygen and nutrients is at
its highest.
This is a basic problem for these two new Swedish studies. Larger neurospheres tend to trigger cell
death simply because of their size and the more dense concentration of cells
involved, even when there are no outside factors involved such as the addition
of nanosilver.
And as the Swedish researchers admit if you carefully read both
of their studies, the much-trumpeted cell death they documented was indeed found
at the very core of the larger neurospheres,
and not nearly as much in the smaller neurospheres.
So did the addition of nanosilver actually cause the cell
death in the larger neurospheres, even though it didn’t negatively affect the
cells in the smaller neurospheres? How
could that be? Why would silver be toxic
to cells in larger neurospheres, but not toxic to cells in smaller
neurospheres?
Or was the cell death noted by the researchers simply a
normal part of what happens when you place larger neurospheres into a test tube
environment in which the cells are very concentrated and food and oxygen less
available?
The researchers don’t even ask those basic questions, but
instead, in knee-jerk fashion, blame the silver for the cell death they noted.
So where did the Swedish researchers go wrong? It appears, first and foremost, that their
biggest mistake was in doing in vitro
test tube cell culture studies rather than in
vivo live animal or human studies.
Test Tube Studies v/s Real-Life Studies
It’s critical to reiterate
that the new Swedish studies were conducted as test tube studies, and not live
studies.
Of course, in a
laboratory test tube that’s full of clusters of retinal cells from the
fore-brains of aborted babies, you can’t even come close to duplicating the
complex biological reactions that take place within living cells in a living
body.
So in reality, the
new Swedish studies prove absolutely
nothing.
After all, our eye
cells, brain cells and all other bodily cells don’t live inside of a test tube,
nor are they kept alive by artificial means.
Instead, they live inside one of the most complex biological systems
known – the human body -- in which very specific protective biological
mechanisms exist.
These are mechanisms
which can’t possibly exist inside of a test tube, but only in a living
body.
Indeed, by using the
test-tube study method, the researchers manage to effectively by-pass – or
perhaps better stated, eliminate -- these
protective biological mechanisms that allow the human body to utilize silver
for its profound healing qualities, while preventing the silver from causing
any damage to cells, tissues and organs.
By eliminating the
protective biological mechanisms, the researchers gain the ability to
demonstrate their preconceived results, even though such results would never take place inside a living human (or
animal) body exposed to normal amounts of silver.
So while the Swedish researchers
tout their new studies as being akin to a cautionary tale, claiming that mere
contact with silver particles from commercial products can result in risk of
blindness, I’d have to classify their studies as something closer to science
fiction.
Indeed, they’re
taking a science fiction scenario (i.e., living cells from an aborted fetus
being kept artificially alive in a test tube) and proclaiming their studies
demonstrate potential harm to an actual
biological entity, such as a living animal or human being.
Of course, the
researchers could have used live
animals in their nanosilver study, as other researcher have done (see, for
example, here and here).
But that would have
caused problems for the Swedish researchers, because most in vivo clinical studies (i.e., real-life, live animal studies) have clearly demonstrated that silver when
used at normal levels is not at all
harmful to cells, tissues or organs in living beings.
In fact, in most
animal studies I’ve seen, no harm could be found when nanosilver has been given
to animals at normal levels. And in most
cases, the researchers have found there was no harm whatsoever even at
egregiously high levels of nanosilver.
But the Swedish
researchers used a test tube “model” for their study, rather than a live animal
study, giving them (in my opinion) the ability to produce whatever results they
wanted.
Live Animal Studies
Show No Harm from
Silver
For example, previous studies on live animals, in which
nanosilver’s effects on the eyes of the test animals were specifically studied,
have found zero significant harm,
even when astonishingly high concentrations of nanosilver were used.
In one such clinical study, published in June 2011 in
the Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, researchers
concluded:
“In acute eye irritation and corrosion study, no mortality and
toxic signs were observed when various doses of colloidal silver nanoparticles
were instilled in guinea pig eyes during 72 hr observation period.
However, the instillation of silver nanoparticles at 5,000 ppm
produced transient eye irritation during early 24 hr observation time.”
In other words, using
normal amounts of nanosilver in the eyes of guinea pigs, the researchers found
no toxic signs whatsoever. Zero. Zip.
Nada.
But when the
researchers instilled a whopping 5,000 ppm colloidal silver nanoparticles
directly into the eyes of the poor little critters, some minor, temporary eye
irritation was noted. Nevertheless, the
irritation was “transient,” disappearing after 48 hours!
By the way, the 5,000
ppm nanosilver used in the mouse’s eyes would be the equivalent of 350,000 ppm
for a typical 155 lb person. Of course,
no one is going to use 5,000 ppm colloidal silver in their eyes, much less
350,000 ppm.
And in a lifetime of
handling consumer products that have been impregnated with antimicrobial
silver, one would never absorb 5,000 ppm worth of silver into their bodies,
much less 350,000 ppm.
Even when people
drink colloidal silver health products, most prefer much smaller fractional concentrations,
such as 5 ppm, 10 ppm or maybe even 20 ppm.
But the point being
this: In live animal studies, even when
preposterously high concentrations of silver were placed into the animal’s eyes
each day, the worst effect noted by the researchers was some minor, transient
eye irritation.
In another animal
study, researchers using 2,000 ppm nanosilver on live rats (i.e., the
equivalent of 140,000 ppm for a normal, adult human) found similar
results. According to the study authors,
“In acute oral and dermal toxicity tests using rats, none of the rats showed
any abnormal signs or mortality at a dose level of ~ 2000 mg/kg.”
What’s more, the
study authors found NO signs of acute eye or dermal irritation or corrosion
when the 2,000 ppm silver nanoparticles were tested in the eyes and on the skin
of the animals.
So once again, we see
that even when egregiously high levels of silver were given to animals, there
were no signs of toxicity, eye damage, brain damage, tissue abnormality or of
any other damage, for that matter.
Even when the
Environmental Protection Agency studied silver’s effects on pregnant
rats that were being tube-fed a caustic form of silver known as silver acetate,
they couldn’t find any lasting harm to the animals.
“In a developmental toxicity study of
pregnant rats conducted in 2002 by the National Toxicology Program (NTP),
silver acetate was administered by gavage [tube-feeding – ED] on days
6-19 of gestation.
No developmental effects were reported
at doses up to 100 mg/kg…
…More importantly, the results from
this study did not demonstrate an increased susceptibility of offspring, nor
did it demonstrate systemic toxicity.”
-- Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register / Vol.
74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
So, silver didn’t
appear to harm the development of baby rats -- or cause them to be born blind,
or born with brain damage -- even though the silver was being tube-fed directly
into the mother rats for 13 days during gestation.
The bottom line is that the new Swedish study pretty much
contradicts all of the major studies conducted on nanosilver to date, the vast
majority of which have demonstrated silver to be not only harmless to human and
animal cells under normal use, but indeed, protective
of cells in many ways.
No Commercial Nanosilver Products
Used in the two Swedish Studies…
In the University of Lund press releases which accompany
these two new Swedish studies, the researchers try to tie commercial nanosilver
products (such as silver-impregnated sports clothing, or silver-impregnated
wash rags, or even colloidal silver products) to their study results, even
though their studies were never conducted
using such commercial nanosilver products nor has anyone ever proven these
products to be harmful.
In other words, the researchers are now using their test
tube studies to make the claim that the use of commercial nanosilver products
could lead to blindness. Yet they didn’t
conduct their studies using any of the
silver-impregnated commercial products they now claim are potentially
harmful.
Example: If researchers want to test the
idea that silver-impregnated stockings (which help diabetics avoid infected
foot and ankle sores) can potentially leach enough silver into the body to
damage retinal cells and cause blindness, why not put a pair of
silver-impregnated stockings into a cage with some test mice, and leave it
there for 30 to 60 days, before checking the mice for eye damage?
The mice would have daily contact with the silver-impregnated
stockings. It could even be used as
their bedding, to make sure they have regular close contact with it. Then the mice could be tested to see if any
of the silver has leached into their bodies and caused any harm.
But the reason the researchers don’t do an in vivo study like that is because they
know in advance what they’d find:
absolutely nothing. There would be no harm to the live animals
whatsoever, because both animals and humans have numerous protective mechanisms
which allow the body to take advantage of silver’s beneficial aspects while
avoiding any potential toxicity.
Another example: If
the researchers want to claim that human contact with silver can cause
blindness, why not do a study in which people with silver-impregnated surgical
implants are followed for several years after their implant, to see if their
eyesight degenerates after a few years worth of exposure to the silver?
After all, these silver-based implants leach silver ions
into the body on a constant, ongoing basis, preventing infection around the
implant site. So if silver is actually
harmful to eyesight and brain function, that theory should be easily
demonstrated in hundreds of thousands of implant patients worldwide who should
be going blind right about now.
Yet it’s not.
There are, in fact, ZERO reports of blindness or brain damage from the
thousands upon thousands of implant patients who are happy because their
silver-impregnated implants prevent colonization by pathogens and thereby
mitigates resulting infections at the implant site.
Indeed, silver is now one of the most commonly used metals
on surgical implants such as artificial knee replacements or artificial hip
replacements and others, thanks to its ability to stop pathogens from
colonizing the implants and causing infection.
It is used now in numerous implant technologies, including:
• Neuro-surgery
shunts
• Urology
catheters
• Orthopaedic
implants
• Suturing
material
• Bone plates
and screws
So if casual contact with silver – through a commercial
product like silver-impregnated stockings, or silver-impregnated computer
keyboard -- actually posed a threat to one’s eyesight, then there would
certainly be a big difference in a person’s eyesight several years after a
silver-impregnated surgical implant has been installed.
But in vivo studies like that – the
results of which would be quite conclusive -- will never be conducted by the anti-silver environmental crowd, because
they know what the results would be in advance.
The human body, through its normal protective mechanisms,
would simply utilize any silver being released from the surgical implants for
its beneficial purposes, and protect itself from any potentially harmful toxic
effects while working to expel the silver through the normal channels of
elimination when it’s served its purpose.
The bottom line is this:
Clinical researchers can’t as easily “shape” the results in
live animal or human studies, as they can when they use these dubious test-tube
studies. The results of the new Swedish test tube studies appear to be preconceived,
agenda-based "science" at its very worst, with no relation to
real-life situations whatsoever.
Indeed, they appear to be specifically designed to whip up
anti-silver hysteria among the public, and especially among government
bureaucrats and policy-makers who decide whether or not silver-based products
can be sold to you, commercially.
Silver Is Protective
to Eyes
I find it most interesting that the researchers behind the
new Swedish studies claim to have demonstrated that nanosilver is harmful to
retinal eye cells, even while other scientists are singing the praises of the
use of nanosilver as a new breakthrough in retinal therapies (see “Silver
nano -- A trove for retinal therapies”).
In fact, clinical researchers around the world are now
referring to silver as a “boon to ocular therapies,” particularly thanks to its
ability to halt pathological retinal angiogenesis, which is one of the most
feared complications among retinal diseases leading to visual impairment and
irreversible blindness.
According to researchers Department of Biotechnology,
Division of Molecular and Cellular Biology at Kalasalingam University, India:
“Silver
nanoparticles due to their potent characteristics such as anti-permeability,
anti-tubules formation, anti-vasculature development, bear out them as an
effective molecule in inhibiting angiogenesis…
…Our
studies on silver nanoparticles effect over angiogenesis make a significant
impact in treating common causes of blindness such as PDR and AMD.”
In other words, far from damaging the retinal cells of the
eyes, silver nanoparticles actually trigger healing
in the eyes, even in serious eye conditions such as retinal angiogenesis or age-related
macular degeneration that would otherwise lead to blindness!
So here’s the bottom line:
The preponderance of clinical evidence demonstrates that normal
levels of silver exposure are not in
the least bit harmful to human cells because the body’s protective mechanisms
kick in upon exposure, allowing the body to take advantage of silver’s powerful
healing properties, while mitigating any toxicity to normal cells.
In in vivo studies
(i.e., real-life animal and human studies) this has always been shown to be the
case when normal amounts of silver are tested on the animals. In fact, even when extremely large dosages of
silver are given or applied, no harm is generally found (see here and here).
Only in test tube studies where silver is used on cells
being artificially kept alive in a
test-tube environment without the support
of the body’s numerous other biological functions can this supposed “toxicity”
from silver be demonstrated.
Would Other
Substances Have Caused
the Same Kind of Cell
Death?
What’s more, the Swedish researchers didn’t bother to determine
whether or not adding other substances to the test tube tissue cell cultures
would have produced similar harmful effects on the cells.
For example, the researchers could have added small amounts
of Coca Cola to the cell culture, or small amounts of vinegar, or small amounts
of orange juice, or small amounts of coffee or tea, in order to see whether or
not they’d have been able to induce similar cell-damaging effects.
If the researchers had exposed the cells to small amounts of
cola, or coffee, or orange juice, or any other substance, they most certainly
would have found similar cell damage, because the protective biological milieu
normally surrounding those cells in the human body is simply not available in a
test tube.
Yet in such a case the researchers would not have sent out shrill press releases
claiming “Coffee Drinking Can Make You Go Blind,” or “Drinking Orange Juice Can
Cause Brain Damage.”
After all, they’d be laughed out of the university if they
did so, since hundreds of years of normal, everyday real-life coffee drinking
and orange juice drinking and has never
caused a single case of blindness or brain damage.
Yet consider this: Hundreds
of years worth of normal, everyday real-life exposure to silver has never caused a single case of blindness
or brain damage as well, in spite of the fact that nanosilver is now used in
public swimming pools…hot tubs and spas…in the drinking and bathing water of
cruise ship liners…in aquatic animal habitats…and even in municipal drinking
water systems…not to mention among people like myself who have ingested small
amounts of silver nearly every day for 20 years.
But now, the researchers behind this poorly-constructed
study rail against the use of antimicrobial silver as if it’s one of the
world’s leading causes of blindness, when in reality blindness has never, ever, ever been associated with
the use of commercial products containing nanosilver.
My point is that these super-liberal universities with large
environmental departments don’t seem to care about the facts when it comes to
silver research.
They tend to test until they find a way to get the
pre-conceived results they want. Then
they send out dozens of scary press releases to make sure their manufactured,
agenda-driven results end up in the news headlines.
This is why last year, one top researcher, Dr. Robert
MacCuspie, of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, repeatedly
admonished his fellow nanosilver researchers to “do good science” and stop
doing “hypothesis testing,” in which the researchers simply keep testing until
they find a way to prove their hypothesis.
For example, in the case of the above-described Swedish
studies, it clearly appears to me that the researchers used retinal cells and
brain cells from aborted tissue cell cultures being kept artificially alive in
test tubes, so they could demonstrate the damage they wanted to demonstrate, knowing full well that if they’d have done
the same testing in real-life animals, their results would have been quite
positive, instead of negative.
These agenda-driven junk science, test tube studies are not
worthy of publication. But because
they’re often conducted under the auspices of major universities, they end up
getting published even though they’re so easily discredited by any thoughtful
lay reader.
Silver Nitrate in
Babies Eyes
In press releases from the University of Lund regarding the
two new studies, the researchers strongly insinuate that the use of
antimicrobial silver in commercial products such as refrigerators, washing
machines, sportswear, shoes and other products, including alternative medicine
products such as colloidal silver, pose a dire threat to the general public
because the silver might cause harm to developing retinal cells (eye cells).
Of course, what’s not
mentioned at all in these two studies – much to the shame of the researchers
who clearly cherry-picked their evidences – is the fact that silver nitrate has
been used for decades without harm in
the developing eyes of newborn babies, at birth.
Indeed, in many countries silver nitrate is still infused
directly into the babies’ eyes at birth to help prevent neonatal ophthalmia, a condition in which infectious microorganisms
picked up in the birth canal by a newborn baby end up causing blindness if the
germs are not killed directly after the baby’s birth.
This silver nitrate eye treatment has prevented quite
literally millions of cases of
blindness worldwide, and has never been known to harm the babies’ developing eyes.
Yet in one of the two new Swedish studies, titled “Silver
and Gold Nanoparticles Exposure to In Vitro Cultured Retina – Studies on
Nanoparticle Internalization, Apoptosis, Oxidative Stress, Glial- and
Microglial Activity,” the Swedish researchers claim:
“The
complex network of neuronal cells in the retina makes it a potential target of
neuronal toxicity – a risk factor for visual loss…
…This
study demonstrates that low concentrations of 20 and 80 nm sized silver
nanoparticles and gold nanoparticles have adverse effects on the retina, using
an organotypic retina culture model.”
In other words, the Swedish researchers claim to have
demonstrated that nerve cells involved in retinal development are adversely
affected by low concentrations of both silver nanoparticles and gold
nanoparticles, and that these adverse effects are a “risk factor for visual
loss.”
This, in spite of the fact that not a single case of blindness caused by silver particles (or gold
particles, for that matter) has ever been reported, worldwide, in the
past 120 years.
What’s more, throughout many decades of that time-frame,
doctors were placing silver directly into the developing eyes of millions of
newborn babies worldwide with no harm to retinal development or eyesight whatsoever!
But again, facts don’t seem to matter to the Swedish
researchers…only conjecture and rank sensationalism based on test-tube studies
designed to advance an environmentalist anti-silver agenda rather than find the
truth.
A Previous Attempt to
Smear Silver Backfires
Earlier this year, I demonstrated how far researchers are
willing to go in order to scare the public away from the use of antimicrobial
silver, when a horrifically flawed Danish
study was first released, claiming silver harms stomach cells.
But upon closer examination of the study details, it turns
out the test-tube-grown cells the Danish researchers used in the study were from
a cancer cell line.
Yet in their press releases, the Danish researchers
purposely failed to mention that it was cancer cells that were killed by the
nanosilver.
And for weeks the news media had a field day claiming silver
damages stomach cells in living human beings, when in reality the silver simply
killed the cancerous cells in a test tube study! (See my complete analysis of the Danish study
at this
link.)
Of course, as I’ve pointed out throughout this analysis and
critique, it’s always best to do experiments in vivo (i.e., live animal or human study, rather than test tube
study) where cells are in their normal optimal environment.
But as one independent Swedish researcher stated after
reviewing the results of the two new Swedish studies, “Researchers do in vitro (i.e., test tube) experiments because it’s
easier and quicker. And they can bypass most of the body’s protective
mechanisms, and thus make silver appear to be ‘toxic’ to cells, when in
reality, in live studies, silver actually protects cells, and promotes cellular
growth and healing.”
Learn More…
If you’d like to learn more on this important topic, you
might also want to read several of my previous short but insightful articles:
And if you want to learn how to make your own pure,
high-quality colloidal silver for less than 36 cents a quart, check out this link.
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,
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
2014 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ
85380-1239 | All rights reserved.
Posts
