Colloidal Silver War Heats Up As Enviro Group Bullies Reporter; Denies Drug Company Funding Links

Enviro group spokesman threatens investigative reporter Tony Isaacs for revealing drug company funding links...

In a recent twist in the battle between environmental groups and colloidal silver users, a spokesman for the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) has not-so-subtly threatened to sue investigative reporter Tony Isaacs over his articles in which he reported finding funding links between charitable foundations associated with major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer, and environmental groups directly associated with the petition to force the EPA to regulate silver-based products, including some of the leading brands of colloidal silver.

Tony's articles have appeared here on this blog, as well as at NaturalNews.com and other online news venues.

I certainly don't speak for Tony Isaacs. But in my view, the implication of Tony's findings is that the environmental groups have been unduly influenced -- wittingly or unwittingly -- by the relatively huge contributions they've received from these foundations.

And what they've been influenced into doing -- wittingly or unwittingly -- is the bidding of Big Pharma in its seemingly unending drive to regulate colloidal silver products into oblivion.

Disingenuous Protest

Since these environmental groups are actively engaged in a long-term battle to force the EPA to regulate nano-silver products -- including some of the major brands of colloidal silver -- their protestations that the funding they've received from charitable foundations linked to Big Pharma companies has not influenced them does seem disingenuous at best.

And all the more so when you consider the fact that a recent investigative report from Associated Press states, “U.S. manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceutical drugs into waterways that often provide drinking water for millions of Americans — contamination the federal government has consistently overlooked…" and that “…trace amounts of a wide range of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in American drinking water supplies…pharmaceuticals have now been detected in the drinking water of at least 51 million Americans.” (Emphasis mine.)

In other words, Big Pharma is polluting the environment with millions of pounds of drugs. But rather than opposing Big Pharma, the environmentalist groups are taking money from charitable foundations associated with them. What's more, these same environmental groups are ruthlessly attacking silver -- the most popular natural health alternative to the prescription antibiotic drugs producted by Big Pharma.

It doesn't take much to see why many people are of the opinion that certain environmentalist groups -- as well-meaning or unwitting as they may be -- have either sold out to the dark side on this particular issue, or are blind to the apparent hypocricy behind their actions.

Letters

Here then is a copy of the letter received by investigative reporter Tony Isaacs from an ICTA spokesman in which Tony is not-so-subtly threatened with a lawsuit for his most recent revelations about environmental group funding by foundations linked to Big Pharma. The ICTA letter is followed by Tony's reply to their spokesman:

Dear Mr. Isaacs:

Please inform your readers that the International Center for Technology Assessment and its sister organization, the Center for Food Safety receive no funding from the Merck Pharmaceutical company. In recent years, the International Center for Technology Assessment has received no funding from the John Merck Fund (which is a separate organization from Merck Pharmaceutical). Moreover, neither we nor the Center for Food Safety have ever received Merck Fund money for our pharmaceutical work. The Merck Fund has helped fund our work to oppose genetically modified organisms. This is something that I hope your readers would support.

Moreover, it is irresponsible of your magazine to falsely accuse our organizations and our partner groups of being in the pay of pharmaceutical organizations. We do not accept funds from corporations to do our work. Had you contacted us before printing your allegations, we would happily have provided you with complete information about our funding sources and a more fulsome understanding of our nano-silver petition which is not about taking silver ion drinks off the market.

We expect this letter to be printed in your magazine and a complete retraction of the article. We receive funding from individuals whose gifts could be affected by your inaccurate allegations and would not wish to be in a situation where we have to seek redress from you and your organization.

Sincerely,
Jaydee Hanson
Policy Director International Center for Technology Assessment

And here is investigative reporter Tony Isaacs's reply to ICTA spokesperson Jaydee Hanson:

Jaydee -

First of all, the article was clearly labeled as opinion, and I am not aware of the first amendment to the Constitution having been repealed. Second of all, the funding figures and years of funding were accurately reported as listed on identified internet sources.

Regardless of how you may allot your funding, or when different funding has been received, the fact is that funds from pharmaceutical companies have been received and despite your claims to the contrary, nano-particle drinks were clearly a target as demonstrated by the fact that three prominent makers of ionic/colloidal silver were included in the original list of items furnished as part of the petition to the FDA - and many other such silver products were later added as an addendum.

It would be interesting to see you seek redress and have to reveal all the sources of your funding, including any funding from pharmaceutical companies and individuals and organizations connected to the pharmaceutical industry including any funding which was diverted through the Tides Center and Tides Foundation and other groups who do not clearly reveal their funding sources and purposes. Likewise, I would like to see your groups explain why they were concerned about a natural element that has been on the earth since its formation and yet have no similar concerns expressed over the millions of tons of unnatural manmade pharmaceuticals that pollute our water supplies.

It would also be interesting to see explanations for other discrepancies such as the release of the so-called major study on the eve of the expected EPA decision which purported to demonstrate evidence of damage to human cells when the study was actually performed by a relatively obscure group from China with connections to two pharmaceutical companies and merely demonstrated that silver nano-particles killed e-coli bacteria.

I personally would love to see an explanation forthcoming from Friends of the Earth as to why they sent emails this past spring to concerned members who used colloidal silver to assure them that they had no desire or intention to regulate colloidal silver and then in June they published a position paper which stated, "We believe that all over-the-counter colloidal silver products should be immediately withdrawn from the market and their sale should be banned (unless approved as a drug by the appropriate regulatory agency)."

And finally, I would also love to see your groups or anyone else try to justify regulating silver as a pesticide by defining bacteria, viruses and fungi as "pests". If such is the case, why are not antibiotic and antiviral drugs regulated as pesticides - especially given their proven pollution of our waters? How about household bleach, rubbing alcohol or drinking alcohol.

Perhaps there are no ulterior motives, but let me ask you - how much funding did any of your associated groups receive from nano-silver manufacturers? It is undeniable that funding was received from pharmaceutical companies. Which one did you petition to regulate and who do you suppose unbiased science would consider the bigger threat?

If the implications that may be drawn are uncomfortable, it is due to your decision to go after a lesser threat, if one even exists, than a much larger threat which happens to come from companies that have funded your organizations at different points in time.

I do agree with your opposition to GMO organisms and only wish that you had your priorities in better order when it comes to regulating items in our water supply and environment.

BTW, I have no organization nor do I have a magazine.

Best regards,
Tony Isaacs

My Two Cents Worth

In my opinion, anytime a relatively huge organization like ICTA has to resort to legal threats right out of the gate to shut you up, you know you're pretty much on the right track. For as much good as organizations like ICTA may do (and there is no doubt their work against Genetically Modified Organisms is a good work), they completely nullify that good by brandishing the legal cudgel whenever someone has a different opinion than they do.

Rather than simply telling their side of the story publicly, and letting the public decide, or presenting evidence to bolster their case, they threaten to unleash the legal guns. And that should put up red flags in the mind of any thinking individual.

With that in mind, I recently sent Tony Isaacs the following message regarding the above correspondence:

Tony,

You've done a fabulous job exposing the publicly available documentation of the extensive funding of some of these anti-silver environmental groups by Big Pharma through the charitable foundations associated with their names.

You ought to win one of those awards for "under reported news story of the year."

I love the way the representative from ICTA states with a straight face that they have not received any pharmaceutical company funding. By cleverly claiming there is no connection between the pharmaceutical companies themselves, and the foundation charities that go by their name, Mr. Hansen shrewdly attempts to exonerate ICTA from the charge of taking pharmaceutical company funding. "Nope. Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along."

In my opinion, groups like ICTA, Friends of the Earth and others get away with their nonsense through collusion, subterfuge and confusion. For example, ICTA and their petition co-sponsors published their petition against nano-silver along with its addendum that clearly names some of the most popular colloidal silver products on the market today as being products that need to be investigated, regulated or banned by EPA.

At that time, when some of their own members complained that they should not be attempting to regulate health food products, they send out emails claiming they have no intention of trying to regulate colloidal silver. Then in June of this year one of their most ardent petition co-sponsors (Friends of the Earth) published a lengthy white paper called Nano and Biocidal Silver: Extreme Germ Killers Present a Growing Threat to Public Health, which clearly calls for the withdrawal from the market of "all over-the-counter silver products," and says their sale should be banned.

My suspicion is that inside these environmental groups, either the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, or they purposely send out conflicting information in order to obfuscate, confuse and deceive until they get their proposed regulations approved by EPA.

The bottom line is that if they truly aren't after colloidal silver products, they could simply add a clear, simple and unequivocal statement to their EPA petition, saying, "Nothing herein should be construed to apply to any oral or topical colloidal silver product on the market."

But they don't. Instead, they obfuscate and send out conflicting claims. In the email you received, their spokesperson says they have no intention of "taking silver ion drinks off the market." But ICTA's attorney George Kimbrell tells quite a different story. When he emailed me on January 8 of this year stating, " If the products are composed of nano-silver, then yes, they are different than other larger particles of silver and need to be regulated separately," he was quite clear that colloidal silver products containing silver nano-particles were indeed on ICTA's radar screen.

Going by attorney Kimbrell's past email comments to me, apparently the size of the silver particle will determine which colloidal silver products should be regulated by the EPA and which shouldn't. Of course, since we know from reading the literature and press releases of these environmental groups that they tend to define "nano-silver" as any silver particle between one and 100 nanometers, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most major brands of colloidal silver are included under their "nano-silver" umbrella.

This, in my view, is why ICTA and its petition co-sponsors such as Friends of the Earth have unequivocally named some of the largest and most popular brands of colloidal silver in the country in their petition demanding the EPA investigate and regulate silver products.

Finally, it is supremely ironic to me that these environmental groups claim to hold the health and well-being of the public as their highest priority, yet they want to regulate or ban colloidal silver products containing smaller, safer silver particles, but apparently leave colloidal silver products containing relatively huge chunks of silver on the market for people to drink. Not that it's any of their business what people choose to ingest. But it certainly lays bare their false claim of public interest in this particular matter.

And of course, as you've so rightly pointed out, that doesn't even compare to the hypocrisy involved in the fact that our nation's waterways are being polluted by pharmaceutical drugs yet these environmental groups are instead attacking safe, natural silver which comes from the environment in the first place, and which loses its "nano" qualities once returned to the environment from which it came.

And they wonder why the public begins to draw the conclusion that the funding these environmental groups receive from pharmaceutical company charities might be affecting their decisions?

Keep up the great work, Tony. You've clearly touched a nerve with your journalistic prowess!

Regards,

Steve Barwick

The Simplest and Smartest Solution

Sooner or later the environmentalist groups are going to end up forcing EPA to regulate nano-silver products.

Whether or not the EPA will follow the views of ICTA attorney George Kimbrell, or the views of ICTA petition co-sponsor Friends of the Earth, and start regulating colloidal silver products containing nano-sized silver particles, is still up for grabs.

But...at this point it doesn't look good for colloidal silver manufacturers, vendors, or users.

That's why I must once again advocate that owning the means of colloidal silver production is the simplest and smartest solution to this darkening situation.

By obtaining a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from our good friends at TheSilverEdge.com, you'll never again have to worry about whether or not the environmentalist groups are going to be able to force EPA to regulate colloidal silver products. Why? Because you'll be able to make all of the high-quality, micro-particle colloidal silver you could ever need, any time you need it, in the comfort and privacy of your own home. And there's not a blessed thing the environmentalists and the bureaucrats can do about it.

The colloidal silver wars are heating up. And the first casualty of war, as they say, is the truth. In regards to the issue of EPA regulation of nano-silver products, the environmentalist groups are getting tired of being beat up by a relatively tiny handful of colloidal silver users. and it would appear that they are in the process of taking off the legal gloves, in order to prevent the truth from going forth.

You have to evaluate the situation for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. But as for me and my household, we are now making our own colloidal silver.

Helpful Links:

Make your own high-quality colloidal silver:

http://www.TheSilverEdge.com/

Learn more about colloidal silver:

http://www.LifeandHealthResearchGroup.com/

The Colloidal Silver Secrets Video:

http://www.ColloidalSilverSecretsVideo.com/

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual:

http://www.UltimateColloidalSilverManual.com/

Colloidal Silver Cures MRSA:

http://www.ColloidalSilverCuresMRSA.com/

Colloidal Silver Kills Viruses:

http://www.ColloidalSilverKillsViruses.com/

The New Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator:

http://www.MicroParticleGenerator.com/

The Colloidal Silver Secrets blog:

http://www.ColloidalSilverSecrets.blogspot.com/

The Secrets of Natural Healing blog:

http://www.SecretsOfNaturalHealing.blogspot.com/

"Ban All Colloidal Silver Products, or Regulate Them as Drugs," says Friends of the Earth

“Ban All Colloidal Silver Products, or Regulate Them as Drugs,” says environmental group Friends of the Earth

Promises made by Friends of the Earth (FOE) not to pursue a ban on over-the-counter colloidal silver products turn out to be bald-faced lies; newly issued FOE position paper reveals their true intentions to have colloidal silver banned and regulated as a drug…

“We believe that all over-the-counter colloidal silver

products should be immediately withdrawn from the market and their sale should be banned (unless approved as a drug by the appropriate regulatory agency).

-- Friends of the Earth (FOE), June 2009 report “Nano and Biocidal Silver,” pg. 13

An old joke says, “How can you tell when a politician is lying?” Answer: “When his mouth is moving.”

I’m beginning to wonder if the kernel of truth within that joke doesn’t also apply to the leaders of environmental groups like Friends of the Earth (FOE).

After all, back in January, February and March of this year when a consortium of environmental groups including the FOE first began pushing a legal petition to have the EPA regulate nanosilver as a “pesticide,” I exposed the fact that this petition, if adopted, would ultimately result in a de facto nationwide ban on the sale of most if not all colloidal silver products.

Directly afterwards, many concerned FOE members who were also long-time colloidal silver users emailed FOE asking if my contentions were true. “Why would an environmental group be trying to ban simple, natural colloidal silver?” FOE members asked their organization’s hierarchy.

FOE representatives, in turn, emailed back, assuring their members that they had no intention whatsoever of pushing for regulations that would ban “traditional colloidal silver products” from the marketplace. They were only concerned, they claimed, with new products that incorporated “nanosilver” into their makeup such as computer keyboards, clothing and other textiles that were impregnated with nanosilver for antimicrobial purposes.

FOE explained in these emails that they were also concerned with other “big ticket” products that could potentially release tiny silver particles into the environment, such as washing machines that squirt small amounts of colloidal silver into the rinse cycle for bacterial control, or devices that release silver particles into swimming pools and hot tubs for the same purpose.

A number of FOE members forwarded those email replies from the FOE hierarchy to me, and seemed satisfied with the seemingly sincere assurances of the organization’s leaders.

The Evidence Pointed Otherwise

But as I dug deeper into the story, I found that the evidence pointed otherwise. I discovered that the petition FOE was backing in conjunction with the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and other environmental groups, had an appendix that named the top three colloidal silver brands in America as being products that need to be pulled from the market immediately until they could prove they posed no “harm to the environment.”

I also discovered that many other, less well-known brands of colloidal silver were listed on that petition addendum.

And I found that legally, if the EPA adopted the environmentalist’s petition as proposed, the listed colloidal silver products would be among the first to fall under the new regulatory grasp of the EPA, which would in turn be obligated to regulate them as “pesticides,” and ban their sale until they could prove through costly and time-consuming environmental impact reports that they presented “no harm to environmentally sensitive microogranisms.”

That, I found, would be the first step in a massive campaign against the sale of colloidal silver products. If adopted by the EPA, the “nanosilver” petition would ultimately become law, in effect resulting in a backdoor ban on colloidal silver products.

What’s more, I emailed the main petition sponsor, the environmental group ICTA, and asked what their intentions were toward colloidal silver products. Their all too carefully worded reply, which I published, made it clear to me that the environmental groups behind the petition were ultimately working to force the EPA to “investigate” and “regulate” virtually any product containing tiny silver particles for antimicrobial purposes.

Clever New Definitions

In later blog posts I also demonstrated how the environmental groups had, in effect, cleverly swept most major brands of colloidal silver under the “nanosilver” umbrella, by pushing a definition of nanosilver as being any product composed of silver particles up to one hundred nanometers in size. I pointed out that this was like claiming a gallon of milk is defined as being any container of milk up to 100 gallons in size.

Why have the environmentalists pushed this revised definition?

Over the past few decades, as colloidal silver-making technology has improved, most major colloidal silver manufacturers have switched to producing smaller silver particles, compared to the overly-large silver particles that had been widely used in colloidal silver products since the early 1900’s.

That’s because the human body is better able to absorb and utilize smaller silver particles for health and nutritional purposes. And it is also better able to excrete the smaller particles after the body utilizes them, so potential silver buildup in the body is far less of a problem. In other words, smaller silver particles are not only better absorbed by the body, and work much better, they are also much safer to use than products containing overly large silver particles.

But because most of the top colloidal silver manufacturers have switched to producing such small silver particles, the revised definition of “nanosilver” being pushed by the environmentalists would effectively and automatically re-classify most major brands of colloidal silver as being “nanosilver” products – the very target of the environmentalists’ EPA petition.

In short, once again, colloidal silver has always been the target of the environmentalist’s anti-silver campaign.

Hidden Pharmaceutical Company Funding

Finally I published a devastating investigative report by ace natural health journalist Tony Isaacs, who unveiled irrefutable evidence that environmental groups behind the petition to force the EPA to regulate silver as a “pesticide” had been taking thousands, tens of thousands, and in some cases even millions of dollars in funding from foundations associated with huge, multi-national pharmaceutical conglomerates like Merck and Pfizer – some of the very drug companies that have the most to lose if safe, natural silver is ever allowed to become a mainstream natural treatment for infection and disease.

I also independently discovered and documented the fact that several large pharmaceutical companies who specialized in the production of prescription antibiotic drugs were directly associated with clinical research groups behind studies being cited by environmental groups such as FOE as “evidence” that silver could harm the environment.

In other words, everywhere you look it appears that Big Pharma is a driving force behind the environmentalist campaign to eliminate colloidal silver and other silver-based products from the marketplace!

(As an aside, the environmental groups never get around to addressing the fact that silver comes from the environment in the first place, and that when nanosilver or any form of colloidal silver is returned to the environment, it loses most of its powerful antimicrobial properties due to agglomeration with other minerals. In essence, it becomes inert, environmentally speaking. Which means it is ultimately harmless to the environment. It cannot harm tiny, environmentally sensitive microorganisms, or fish, or humans, or anything else, for that matter.)

What Are Environmental Groups Doing in Bed With Big Pharma?

So why in the world are environmental groups taking such staggering sums of money from Big Pharma? It just doesn’t make sense. After all, a recent investigative report from Associated Press states that, “U.S. manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceutical drugs into waterways that often provide drinking water for millions of Americans — contamination the federal government has consistently overlooked…“

In other words, Big Pharma is polluting the environment with drugs. But rather than opposing Big Pharma, the environmentalist groups are taking money from them. What’s more, environmental groups are ruthlessly attacking silver – the most popular natural health alternative to the prescription antibiotic drugs produced by Big Pharma.

Are you starting to get the picture?

According to the Associated Press report, “…trace amounts of a wide range of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in American drinking water supplies…pharmaceuticals have now been detected in the drinking water of at least 51 million Americans.” (Emphasis mine.)

The report goes on to state, “Most cities and water providers still do not test. Some scientists say that wherever researchers look, they will find pharma-tainted water.”

What’s more, the AP report also noted that “Pharmaceutical makers typically are excused from having to submit an environmental review for new products, and the FDA has never rejected a drug application based on potential environmental impact.” (Emphasis mine.)

In short, Big Pharma can produce hundreds of billions of dollars a year worth of prescription drugs, and in spite of the fact that millions of pounds of these drugs annually end up polluting the environment, the environmental groups remain silent. There is not a single call to regulate Big Pharma’s drugs as environmental pollutants.

In fact, according to the AP report, Big Pharma doesn’t even need to submit environmental reviews for their drugs, which are now contaminating the drinking water of tens of millions of American men, women and children.

But colloidal silver, which has never been demonstrated to contribute to environmental pollution, is being singled out by the environmental groups (backed by their Big Pharma paymasters) for extreme and completely unwarranted environmental regulations that will literally drive most if not all colloidal silver manufacturers and vendors completely out of business. And it’s all being pulled off in the name of “protecting the environment.”

Clearly, the hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. If you’re Big Pharma, you can pollute the environment with impunity, and the Environmental Protection Agency and major environmental groups look the other way. But if you produce a relatively safe, natural product that’s considered by Big Pharma to be a direct competitor to their prescription antibiotic drugs, they’ll sic the environmental watchdogs on you, and drive you out of business.

The environmentalist groups like ICTA and FOE are simply doing the bidding of Big Pharma…for money. They have sold out to the dark side. Pure and simple.

Enviros Openly Admit They Want to Ban All Colloidal Silver Products

I give you all of the above as background. What I’m about to tell you next demonstrates that, in spite of many feigned protestations to the contrary from the environmental groups like Friends of the Earth (FOE), the goal of the environmental groups all along has been to ban the over-the-counter sale of colloidal silver.

Indeed, in a brand new position paper entitled Nano and Biocidal Silver: Extreme Germ Killers Present a Growing Threat to Public Health, published in June 2009 by FOE, it is made abundantly clear that the true aim of the environmentalist campaign is a complete ban on all colloidal silver products.

Of course, FOE is one of the main environmentalist co-sponsors of the petition to have the EPA regulate nanosilver as a “pesticide.” But their 48 page position paper makes it abundantly clear that conventional colloidal silver is their true target.

Their new position paper is without a doubt one of the most magnificent pieces of subterfuge and deception ever to see the light of day. The use of hyperbole, obfuscation, misdirection and exaggeration in an attempt to paint colloidal silver products as being harmful not just to the environment, but to mankind in general, and to children in particular, has been taken to heights previously unrealized. You could say FOE has made an art form out of deception with their latest report, and that would be an understatement.

In just a moment I’ll show you some examples of the deception and exaggeration used in the new FOE position paper. But first, I’ll simply bottom-line it for you. On page 13 of their new report, the FOE states, clearly and unequivocally, that their intentions are to bring about a complete and immediate BAN on ALL over-the-counter colloidal silver products, and that colloidal silver should only be sold if it is regulated as a drug. Here is a direct, word-for-word quote:

“We believe that all over-the-counter colloidal silver products should be immediately withdrawn from the market and their sale should be banned (unless approved as a drug by the appropriate regulatory agency).

-- Friends of the Earth (FOE), June 2009 report, Nano and Biocidal Silver: Extreme Germ Killers Present a Growing Threat to Public Health,” pg. 13

Even the title of their position paper, Nano and Biocidal Silver: Extreme Germ Killers Present a Growing Threat to Public Health, tells you what they’re after.

“Nano” of course, refers to silver products composed of very tiny particles of silver. But “Biocidal” refers to ANY type of silver that kills microbes.

In other words, the environmentalists are no longer even attempting to hide their true motives in attacking silver. They have labeled all silver products “a growing threat to public health.” Now they admit forthrightly they seek nothing less than a total ban on all over-the-counter silver-based products, including colloidal silver.

Environmental Flim-Flam

In the recent past, one of the most effective techniques the environmentalists have used in their ongoing campaign against silver-based products is to cite clinical studies they (falsely) purport demonstrate some significant danger to humans from contact with silver.

For example, in March of this year, just before the EPA closed the door to public comments on the campaign to regulate silver as a “pesticide,” the environmentalists published an article claiming that a “major new clinical study” had proven that silver harms human cells.

What the environmentalists failed to report in their article was most enlightening. First of all, it turned out that the study they cited was hardly “major.” Indeed, it was a very small study conducted by a virtually unknown research group in Red China.

Secondly, it turned out that the group conducting the study was in cahoots with two major pharmaceutical companies who are major producers of prescription antibiotic drugs. And finally, the study itself merely demonstrated the well-known fact that silver kills e. coli bacteria by damaging its cellular structure and preventing it from replicating.

In other words, the study was on bacterial cells, not human cells. Yet in an act of subterfuge and deception that, in my opinion, took the art of misdirection to a completely new level, the environmentalists used that study to promote the idea that silver is somehow harmful to human cells.

Similarly, their new position paper, Nano and Biocidal Silver: Extreme Germ Killers Present a Growing Threat to Public Health, is rife with such deceptive tactics. For example, the paper repeatedly cite studies conducted on bacterial cells to justify their contention that colloidal silver harms human cells, even though no such harm has ever been demonstrated.

In fact, when Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. of Syracuse Medical University conducted his groundbreaking research on colloidal silver in the 1980’s, during which he used an electrical apparatus to drive tiny, submicroscopic silver particles directly into the bones and surrounding tissues and organs of his patients who were suffering from incurable infections, he not only demonstrated that silver cured every infection, but that no harm whatsoever was caused to the patients’ cells, tissues, organs or bones. In fact, he stated at the time:

“What we have done was rediscover the fact that silver kills bacteria, a fact which had actually been known for centuries...All of the organisms we tested were sensitive to the electrically generated silver ion, including some that were resistant to all known antibiotics...In no case were any undesirable side effects of the silver treatment apparent.”

In short, the new FOE position paper makes colloidal silver -- one of the safest natural substances on the face of the earth – out to be the single-greatest threat to mankind since nuclear weapons. You’d think it was plutonium the environmentalists are talking about, instead of silver.

This is environmental flim-flam at its worst.

Duplicitous Diatribe

The FOE position paper also repeatedly contradicts itself. For example, in one section of the paper the FOE states:

It is presently not known how to determine if the human central nervous system is vulnerable to silver toxicity and at what dose. While there is some evidence that silver may cross the blood brain barrier (at least in rats), the evidence is inconclusive and silver deposits do not appear to result in detectable neurological damage (Landsdowne 2007).

Yet in another section of the position paper, the FOE states categorically of silver-based preparations:

However there is plenty of evidence that such preparations are dangerous, may cause argyria, have been implicated in neurological problems and may even result in death (Landsdown 2007).

Which is it? Silver either doesn’t cause neurological problems, or it does. The evidence is either “inconclusive,” or there is “plenty of evidence.” You can’t have it both ways. And if you’re going to state that a substance like colloidal silver “may result in death,” you’d better have the facts to back it up. Not surprisingly, they don’t present a single shred of evidence for this sensationalistic contention.

Toxicity?

Under a glaring headline that reads “Silver Can Be Toxic To Humans” the FOE is only able to come up with a single obscure case in which an unnamed person with burns over 30% of his body had “liver toxicity,” allegedly from wearing “nanosilver coated wound dressings.”

Of course, we are not told by FOE how extensive the liver toxicity was, nor how it was determined that “nanosilver coated wound dressings” were the actual cause of this toxicity. We are not told whether the liver toxicity was permanent or transient (most cases of liver toxicity are transient, with the liver returning to normal after the offending substance is eliminated).

What’s more, we are not told if there were other offending substances involved. For example, we can only assume that the individual was on powerful painkillers such as Demerol, considering the fact that he had burns over 30% of his body. He was probably on muscle relaxants, considering the fact that serious burn patients have to remain still for long periods of time in order to allow their skin to heal. We can only assume the patient was on other prescription drugs as well, to help alleviate discomfort and speed healing.

So could a cocktail of drugs or other medical substances have contributed to the reported liver toxicity? FOE doesn’t tell us. They simply assure us that this single obscure case is evidence that “Silver Can Be Toxic to Humans.” Oh, my.

The remaining paragraphs under that glaring headline have nothing whatsoever to do with silver toxicity, but instead are a re-hash of the same tired old ad nauseum charges about silver usage producing “argyria,” a type of skin discoloration caused when people drink extreme and completely unwarranted amounts of colloidal silver over long periods of time – something no experienced and knowledgeable colloidal silver user would ever have to worry about.

There is much, much more deception, exaggeration, misdirection and outright fabrication in this slick, glossy, full-color 48-page position paper from FOE. But I won’t bore you with the excruciating details, except to say anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking can see that FOE’s entire anti-silver campaign is based on an empty foundation of raw speculation and rank sensationalism. The unfortunate problem, however, is that these days most people have lost their ability to think critically, and will likely fall for the deceptive and sensationalistic propaganda tactics employed by FOE.

The Final Insult: “Do It for the Children”

It’s been said in the distant past that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. This doesn’t mean that patriots are scoundrels. It simply means that scoundrels have long been known to wrap themselves in a cloak of patriotic fervor whenever they try to pull a con on the general public. The aura of patriotism frequently blinds people to the con being pulled on them.

My contention, however, is that patriotism no longer works very well as a smokescreen for deception. Modern-day scoundrels have learned that it’s far more effective to jump on the “do it for the children” bandwagon in order to sell a con to the general public, than to wrap themselves in the flag. That’s because children are an emotional topic that anyone can relate to. So these days, shrewd con artists play on the public’s heartstrings, claiming they are “doing it for the children” whenever they want to pull a fast one over on the public.

What does this have to do with the new FOE position paper? Interestingly, its cover features a large color photograph of an innocent, doe-eyed baby sucking on a baby bottle next to the blaring title of the paper --Biocidal Silver: Extreme Germ Killers Present a Growing Threat to Public Health.

By the time you scroll to page five, you’ll discover what I call the final insult: the new theme adopted by the environmentalists in order to scare the public into supporting their call for a ban on silver-based products is that we have to do it for the children.

You see, prominently featured on page five is another large photo. This one is of a cute little girl of about four years old, holding a fluffy teddy bear. Printed in big letters next to her image is the following dire warning: “By exposing children to increasing quantities of biocidal nanosilver, we may very well be robbing a child’s need to mature his or her immune system.”

Ah, yes. You probably didn’t realize that all of those evil colloidal silver-swigging parents out there have apparently been painting their children from head to toe with “biocidal nanosilver” before sending them off to school each day, thereby depriving them of being exposed to all of the pathogens they need in order to “mature their immune systems.” At least, that’s what the environmentalist groups like Friends of the Earth (FOE) would have you believe.

Of course, there’s no mention of the literally tons of antibiotic drugs being dumped into the water supply of 51 million Americans by Big Pharma. Surely that kind of environmental pollution is not playing any role in “robbing a child’s need to mature his or her immune system.” No siree. No problem there. It’s those damned silver nanoparticles being impregnated into the fabric of the new “Benny the Bear Plush Toy” the kids need protecting from, according to the new FOE report.

You probably think I’m kidding. But I’m not. That’s exactly what the new FOE report contends. They even name several makers of “plush toys” for children that contain the dreaded silver nanoparticles the environmentalists now contend will somehow prevent children’s immune system’s from developing correctly by keeping too many pathogens away from them.

I swear to you, that’s what they’re now claiming. Yes, we’ve got to ban colloidal silver or our children will be deprived of all of those nasty pathogens they need. We’ve got to do it for the children.

Lions and tigers and bears…oh my!

The Coming EPA Decision

Considering the tenor, tone and timing of the new FOE position paper, and the expense they’ve gone through to put it together and distribute it, the EPA must be getting ready to make their announcement as to whether or not they are going to adopt the ICTA/FOE legal petition calling for all products containing silver nanoparticles to be heavily regulated as “pesticides.”

As I’ve repeatedly warned, if adopted, this petition will force manufacturers of silver-based products – including most major colloidal silver products -- to prove through expensive environmental impact reports that their products won’t harm “environmentally sensitive microorganisms.”

And because those environmental impact reports can run into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, this means most colloidal silver vendors will be put out of business for good by the environmentalists.

The new FOE position paper says it all. It’s not just “nanosilver” products they’re after, but a total ban on colloidal silver preparations as well.

What’s The Solution?

Back in January, February and March of this year (2009), natural health proponents and colloidal silver users did all they could to let the EPA know how they feel about the environmentalist’s plans to force EPA to regulate silver-based products, including colloidal silver, as “pesticides.”

Thousands upon thousands of people emailed, called, wrote and phoned the EPA offices to let them know of the disdain and disgust they held for the actions of the environmental groups, who are clearly on the payroll of Big Pharma.

Now, the only foolproof solution left to protect your access to colloidal silver is to make sure you literally own the means of colloidal silver production by obtaining a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge.

With a brand new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge, you’ll be able to make all of the safe, natural, high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver you could ever want, any time you want it, in the comfort and privacy of your own home.

You’ll be able to make high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver for about 36 cents a quart – which is astonishingly inexpensive considering most health food store colloidal silver costs about twenty bucks or more for a tiny four-ounce bottle.

What’s more, making micro-particle colloidal silver with a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge is as easy as brewing a pot of coffee. (See 3-minute demonstration film, directly below.)

Indeed, when you own the means of colloidal silver production, it won’t matter whether or not the EPA bans the over-the-counter sale of colloidal silver, as environmental groups like ICTA and FOE are pushing them to do. They can ban colloidal silver into oblivion, and you’ll still be able to make all of the high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver you want, any time you want, with a Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge.

Will They Ban Colloidal Silver Generators, Too?

But please keep in mind that the EPA is already making noises about banning the little generators too. (See previous post on “The Coming Ban on Colloidal Silver Generators”.)

What that means is that if you want to own the means of colloidal silver production, you’re going to have to act quickly and decisively. This is certainly no time to be indecisive. Once you own a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge, they cannot take it away from you.

But if they ban the little generators, too, then access to colloidal silver will be a thing of the past for the vast majority of people.

Only those fortunate few who saw the handwriting on the wall and acted accordingly by purchasing a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator and some extra pure silver wire from The Silver Edge will have access to the world’s most powerful natural antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral agent, colloidal silver.

A word to the wise is sufficient. The time is growing late. If you’ve ever wanted to own a high-quality Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge, now is the time to do so. Please don’t wait until it is too late to obtain one legally.

Important Links:

http://www.thesilveredge.com/
http://www.microparticlegenerator.com/
http://www.lifeandhealthresearchgroup.com/
http://www.colloidalsilvercuresmrsa.com/
http://www.colloidalsilversecretsvideo.com/
http://www.ultimatecolloidalsilvermanual.com/