Is Big Pharma Funding the Radical Anti-Silver Environmentalist Groups?

At least one reader feels I’m not doing a very good job of exposing the idea that Big Pharma is manipulating or even orchestrating the radical environmental groups that have been attacking antimicrobial silver. I’ll let you decide…

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

After publication of my latest article, “How Many Scare Tactics and Lies About Antimicrobial Nanosilver Can Friends of the Earth Cram Into a Single Email?” (see article here) several readers wrote to politely chastise me.

One felt that my article was too long and laborious to read, and that I needed to give a short series of “action steps” instead of so many details.

I wrote back explaining that the time to take action was long past…

…that I’d written many, many articles since late 2008 urging colloidal silver users to act against the egregious tactics of the radical environmentalists who have been trying to force the EPA to restrict the public’s access to silver-based products…

…and in those articles I’ve provided a number of “action steps” that could be taken, particularly when public comments on the matter were being requested by the EPA.

Finally, I explained that there’s not much left to do now but sit back and wait as the EPA wrangles over new regulations for products containing antimicrobial silver.

Will the new regulations affect the sale of safe, natural colloidal silver?

We simply don’t know yet, because the EPA and the radical environmentalist groups behind the drive to regulate silver as a “pesticide” have become very tight-lipped about it…

…ever since they got their hands slapped by colloidal silver users during the initial stages of the campaign to force the EPA to regulate silver-based products as “pesticides.”

My best guess at the moment is that the EPA will implement new rules and regulations regarding the use of antimicrobial silver in consumer products such as computer keyboards, kitchen cutting boards, toothbrushes, shampoos, soaps, etc. But I’m betting they’ll initially leave colloidal silver out of the fray.

However, after the regulations have been set in stone, I have little doubt the radical environmentalists will start pushing the EPA to include over-the-counter colloidal silver products in their regulations, in accord with the Friends of the Earth White Paper that recommended all colloidal silver products be either banned, or regulated as “drugs.”

Big Pharma’s Influence

Another reader felt I have failed to drive home the contention that the radical environmental groups behind the campaign to regulate silver-based products are being orchestrated by Big Pharma.

Here’s my response to that charge…

Back in early 2009 I wrote an article voicing my strong suspicions that Big Pharma might be funding the radical environmental groups that were working so hard to remove all products containing antimicrobial silver – including colloidal silver – from the marketplace:

"The environmental groups behind the petition to regulate silver particles as ‘pesticides’ get the bulk of their funding, to the tune of millions of dollars a year, from donations from corporate and individual sponsors, as well as from government grants.

My best guess is that Big Pharma is funding these groups through one or more surreptitious pathways to pursue this avenue of silver regulation.

After all, who stands to benefit more than Big Pharma from restricting silver’s availability to the general public?"

I later published an article by intrepid natural health journalist Tony Isaacs, who exposed how Big Pharma appeared to be using its charitable foundations to fund the radical environmentalists.

In the preface to that article, I wrote:

Boy did we hit the nail on the head. It now appears that at least two big drug companies -- Merck and Pfiizer -- have for many years been using charitable foundations to pour tens of thousands of dollars…

…and in some cases even millions of dollars worth of funding into some of the very environmental groups now actively engaged in promoting the petition to have "nano-silver" products regulated as "pesticides."

Tony’s article, which you can read at the link above, went on to expose exactly how the radical anti-silver environmentalists were being funded to the tune of millions of dollars in some cases, by certain charitable foundations associated with Big Pharma.

Finally, in October of 2009 I wrote an article about the lawsuit threat received by natural health journalist Tony Isaacs for exposing the links between the radical environmentalists and Big Pharma’s charitable foundations.

Here’s an excerpt from my lead to that article:

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.

Since that time, I’ve referenced and linked to these articles on numerous occasions.

Nevertheless, at least one reader feels I’m not doing a good enough job of hammering home the idea that Big Pharma appears to be orchestrating the environmentalist campaign to have antimicrobial silver more stringently regulated by the EPA.

Indeed, one well-known colloidal silver manufacturer has repeatedly written me, politely chastising me for failing to do a good enough job of exposing what he believes to be the manipulation of environmental groups by Big Pharma in a quest to censor and heavily regulate silver-based products.

Here’s his most recent email, which I received after posting my latest article titled “How Many Scare Tactics and Lies About Antimicrobial Nanosilver Can Friends of the Earth Cram Into a Single Email?”:

Hi Steve,

Another superbly written and very passionate piece you’ve written here.

And another well-intended, equally passionate suggestion from me. This time it’s very concise and to the point:

I wish to God your pieces on this subject all focused heavily on the core – CORE – issue behind all this, which is that big pharma is funding and orchestrating all of this and using the environmental groups as their front men…

…and the reason for this drive is solely to keep the “information flow” censored about the far-reaching antimicrobial benefits of silver…

…because that information allows colloidal/ionic silver manufacturers (and consumers who make it themselves) to compete with the multi-billion-dollar antibiotic industry.

It could readily get out of control with more information flow and cost them billions of dollars, with a big B.

Period!

THAT is what this is all about, and that’s what you should be saying from the rooftops in these pieces.

Everything else you’re saying is also of course vital and priceless.

BUT it still seems like “maybe” they’re right and “maybe” you’re just disgruntled for competitive reasons (some people think environmental groups are generally genuine, man)…

…UNTIL you shine the spotlight on that one core bottom-line fact, at which point it all falls right into place!

People then understand that the money that the environmental groups are taking from big pharma has a direct motivation and thus clearly a direct tainting effect on those groups.

They understand that the cries from the environmental groups should now, therefore, suddenly be taken with an enormous grain of salt for that reason alone (without having to digest, research, and make judgments about all the other phenomenal supportive things you point out, or, better yet, in addition to it).

And, they see by virtue of understanding that core issue that, indeed, it is the very benefits that silver provides that is so incredibly threatening to big pharma in the first place…

…hence their elaborately orchestrated campaign to ultimately do one thing and that is censor what was becoming an out-of-control flow of information enlightening the public about the antimicrobial benefits of silver.

Your articles on this subject should have ten times the impact with that core issue spelled out clearly and repeatedly.

I hope that resonates this time.

(Sigh.)

-- Name withheld

Have I Failed to Cover All of the Bases?

Well, there you have it.

I’m not particularly convinced I’ve done a bad job reporting on the craziness being perpetrated by radical environmental groups who’ve been working overtime to push the EPA to more stringently regulate commercial products that incorporate antimicrobial silver into their makeup.

And frankly, I don’t see anyone else out there writing the number of articles I’ve written on this subject.

Furthermore, I believe there’s much more to the story than the glaring likelihood that these environmental groups are being manipulated, orchestrated or otherwise influenced by Big Pharma.

For example, I believe it’s important to cover the numerous lies the environmentalist groups have told…

…the unbelievable levels of sensationalism they’ve engaged in…

…the dirty tricks they’ve pulled…

…the two-faced way they’ve operated…

…the ridiculous scare tactics they’ve engaged in…

…the poorly constructed studies they’ve touted…

…and much more.

Each of these topics are, in my opinion, vital parts of the story that need to be told.

Here are just a few of the articles I’ve written since the radical environmentalist groups first unleashed their campaign against antimicrobial silver in late 2008:

· Emergency Alert: Stop EPA From Further Regulating Colloidal Silver as a "Pesticide" (Jan. 6, 2009)

· Act NOW to Help Save Colloidal Silver From EPA Regulation! (Jan 9, 2009)

· Special Update on the Battle to Save Colloidal Silver From Regulation By the EPA (Jan 23, 2009)

· Updated Contact Information for Stopping the EPA from Regulating Colloidal Silver (Jan 24, 2009)

· In Defense of Colloidal Silver, Part I: Colloidal Silver Users Tell EPA "Hands Off Our Colloidal Silver!" (Feb 23, 2009)

· Colloidal Silver and "NanoSilver": What's the Difference? (Feb 25, 2009)

· Will the EPA actually ban products containing silver nano-particles? (Feb 26, 2009)

· Why do the environmentalists have such a dread fear of silver nano-particles? (Feb 28, 2009)

· Dirty Tricks in the Battle to Save Colloidal Silver from EPA Regulation (Mar 5, 2009)

· Enviro Groups Lie About Study in Last Ditch Effort to Have Silver Regulated by EPA as a "Pesticide" (Mar 16, 2009)

· Update on EPA Petition to Regulate Silver as a "Pesticide" (Mar 23, 2009)

· Are Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles Harmful to Human Cells? (July 31, 2009)

· "Ban All Colloidal Silver Products, or Regulate Them as Drugs," says environmental group Friends of the Earth (July 31, 2009)

· Exposed: More Environmentalist Claptrap Against Colloidal Silver (August 6, 2009)

· Act Quickly -- Tell the EPA to Keep Their Hands Off Colloidal Silver (October 20, 2009)

· Antibacterial Nanosilver and Those Sneaky Environmentalists (November 18, 2009)

· EPA Panel Still Looking at Ways to Regulate NanoSilver Products (Including Colloidal Silver)… (July 29, 2010)

· Environmentalists: Silver Is Toxic to Fathead Minnows (July 29, 2010)

· Colloidal Silver v/s the EPA Greenies: Understanding the Lies Behind the “Silver is Dangerous to the Environment” Con (August 9, 2010)

· Now Radical Environmentalists Claim Silver Usage Is “Killing the Planet”; Causing “Climate Change” (December 1, 2010)

· Environmentalists: Silver Nanoparticles a Threat to Plant Life! (December 27, 2010)

· Radical Environmentalists, the EPA, and Safe, Natural Colloidal Silver: What You Need to Know (March 13, 2011)

· In Defense of Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles: It’s Time to Kick Some Environmentalist Butt (April 2, 2011)

· Radical Environmentalists Tell EPA: “Regulate Silver or It Will Create More Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogens”! (July 19, 2011)

· Gloom in the Trend Toward Silver-Based Antimicrobial Products? (July 20, 2011)

In the future, I’ll continue to do my part and cover this evolving story with the attention to detail I feel it deserves.

And I’ll continue to voice my opinion on the idea that the radical environmentalists are – wittingly or unwittingly – doing the work of Big Pharma in their attempts to restrict access to antimicrobial silver…

…and that integrating antimicrobial silver into commercial products is in my opinion the ONLY sure-fire answer to the growing infectious disease crisis faced by this nation as well as the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, Big Pharma views antimicrobial silver as the #1 competition to their failing prescription antibiotic drugs.

And as we all know, they’ve worked diligently to prevent the public from learning more about the many healing benefits of antimicrobial silver.

So for that reason alone I’ll continue to write about colloidal silver…

…and the many phenomenal infection-fighting benefits of antimicrobial silver in general…

…as well as the radical environmentalist crusade to prevent the general public from having access to commercial products that utilize antimicrobial silver…

…and the ongoing battle to prevent the people from learning more about the many healing and protective benefits of colloidal silver.

I know I can’t please everyone. I’m not everybody’s cup of tea. But I’ll do the very best I can.

And hopefully in the meantime, rather than merely criticize, others might step in and pick up the slack where they feel I fall short.

So until the next issue, I remain…

Yours for the safe, sane and responsible use of colloidal silver,

Steve Barwick, author

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual

Helpful Links:

Join the Colloidal Silver Secrets Community on Facebook

Video: Learn How to Make Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver

Get Your FREE Colloidal Silver “Safe Dosage” Report

.999 Fine Pure Silver Wire for Making Colloidal Silver

The New Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator

Subscribe to the Colloidal Silver Secrets Ezine

Make Your Own Colloidal Silver Inexpensively

Real-Life Colloidal Silver Success Stories

Colloidal Silver Update (News & Views)

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual

The Colloidal Silver Secrets Video

Colloidal Silver Kills Viruses

Colloidal Silver Cures MRSA

Colloidal Silver Secrets blog

Meet Steve Barwick

Important Note and Disclaimer: The contents of this Ezine have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and reliability thereof. The author, Steve Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience writing professionally about natural health topics. He is not a doctor. Therefore, nothing stated in this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical advice. Nothing reported herein is intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The author is simply reporting in journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage. Therefore, the information and data presented should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with caution. Readers should verify for themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas, conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein. All important health care decisions should be made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and experienced health care professional. Readers are solely responsible for their choices. The author and publisher disclaim responsibility or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a result of the use or application of any information included in this Ezine.

Antibacterial Nanosilver and Those Sneaky Environmentalists

Antibacterial Nanosilver and Those Sneaky Environmentalists

As a journalist and a natural health advocate, I constantly watch how the "other side" makes their case against antibacterial silver, colloidal silver, nanosilver, and other silver-based antibacterial products. In other words, I watch how they use clever propaganda techniques to promote their anti-silver agenda.

For example, one of the most interesting tactics the environmentalists are now taking in their quest to have nanosilver products (including colloidal silver products) regulated as "pesticides" is to write articles that initially admit products containing nanosilver have beneficial qualities.

In these articles, the environmentalist author generally starts out appearing to be a moderate advocate for silver-based products. This sneaky tactic sucks you into the article, making it appear the author is unbiased and is going to present an even-handed case regarding the use of antibacterial silver in commercial products.

But then, as the article winds to its conclusion, the true agenda of the environmentalist author shows up. He (or she) suddenly turns against silver-based antibacterial products, and starts using exaggerations, hyperbole and sensationalistic claims to smear the use of silver as “potentially harmful to human health.”

Advocates, or Master Propagandists?

In short, these master propagandists begin their articles sounding like advocates for the use of silver as an antimicrobial agent, and end their articles denigrating silver as a "danger" to society.

Here's one recent example, from the so-called Cold Truth blog: http://www.coldtruth.com/2009/08/10/nano-packaging-of-food-kills-deadly-bacteria-but-government-says-no-go/comment-page-1/#comment-1688

As you'll see, the author begins his article as if he’s a passionate advocate of the use of silver for antimicrobial purposes in commercial products.

He seems to be defending a manufacturer of silver-based antibacterial food packaging who can't get his product approved by the FDA.

But that's just the tactic the author -- a well-known environmentalist journalist -- uses to lure readers into his article, and to create the illusion that he’s being even-handed in his treatment of the subject.

By the end of the article, the author reveals his true motives. He reverts to the same hyper-exaggerations and sensationalistic tactics the environmentalists always revert to. He begins making up claims against antibacterial silver out of whole cloth, and using hyperbolic language to scare readers into believing silver is a threat to the environment and to human health as well.

This same environmentalist author, by the way, used this very same tactic some months back, in an article entitled, "Health Risks from Silver Nanoparticles is a Growing Threat to Consumers and Workers." When I commented on his article on his web site, and pointed out the exaggerations and inconsistencies, he removed my comment. So I wrote about it, exposing his questionable propaganda tactics here.

My Answer to His Latest Anti-Silver Propaganda Rant

Here then is my answer to this author's latest drive-by-shooting against products containing antibacterial nanosilver:

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Because you’re an investigative reporter who claims to publish the “cold truth” about health and environmental issues, I’d like to point out that there are several demonstrably untrue statements in your recent post entitled "Nano packaging of food kills deadly bacteria, but government says no go."

In addition to the rather serious untruths in your article, which I’ll cover briefly below, you also failed to tell the truth by way of omission. Which is to say, the information you left out of your article is in some cases more indicative of the truth than the information you included in your article.

Those Dreaded Nanosilver Panties – Oh My!

For example, when you wrote about the issue of nanosilver being embedded into the fabric of clothing for antimicrobial purposes, you railed against it, claiming that "frivolous products containing nanosilver particles" have now reached "absurd levels," including "nano-infused bras, panties, athletic supporters, socks, pants and scores of other products."

What you failed to point out is that the vast majority of such silver-impregnated clothing items are medical in nature, for example:

• Special nanosilver stockings for diabetics, which help prevent diabetic foot, ankle and leg ulcers from becoming so infected that amputation is the only way to resolve the situation...

• Special nanosilver socks for the U.S. military, to help prevent "foot rot," athlete's foot and other serious fungal infections for our troops stationed in war zones and other areas where there are often less than sanitary conditions...

• Special nanosilver imbedded sports clothing for athletes to help prevent the spread of MRSA infections and other serious bacterial infections now commonly associated with close contact sports.

I could go on and on, but I don't think it really matters to you.

Instead of pointing out that nanosilver impregnated clothing was a medical Godsend for hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, you hyper-exaggerated the situation. Oh, my! Those dread nanosilver panties are clearly threatening the health of millions.

Or so you’d have your readers believe. (I truly hope they’re not that gullible.)

The Old Lie About Nanosilver In the Water Supply

You then stated, "It didn’t take long for environmental scientists to find community water treatment plants loaded with nanosilver washed from these clothing items."

Sir, where is your evidence for that statement? If that is indeed the “cold truth,” please enlighten me. Where’s the proof?

While the news media has been rife with reports of the contamination of the community water supplies of this nation with dozens of potentially dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, I have not seen a single news report about overly high levels of silver particles being found in community water treatment plants.

Indeed, to my knowledge, there have been ZERO reports of community water treatment plants being "loaded" with nanosilver, as you so sensationalistically claim.

What Really Happened…

What you failed to tell your readers is that several preliminary laboratory tests were performed in which items of clothing embedded with nanosilver were repeatedly washed until the silver particles began coming loose from the fabric. The so-called environmental "scientists" who conducted these studies then leaped to the conclusion that nanosilver from antibacterial clothing is contaminating water treatment plants and community water supplies.

But to my knowledge, to this day they have provided no significant or realistic evidence whatsoever for this kneejerk conclusion. No testing of community water treatment plants have demonstrated rising levels of nanosilver.

Agglomeration of Silver Particles

Most people who have studied the situation carefully, and with an unprejudiced eye, understand that nanosilver does not maintain its "nano" characteristics once it is released into the environment.

Instead, it rapidly agglomerates, or bonds, with other minerals such as alkaline salts, forming large particle agglomerates, and becoming virtually inert in terms of its previous antibacterial qualities.

In other words, once nanosilver enters the environment, it loses its “nano” qualities. It becomes like any other mineral substance found in water (also known as “dirt”).

Contrary to the wild assertions of some environmentalist groups like the International Center for Technology Assessment and Friends of the Earth, this poses no danger whatsoever to our nation’s waterways, or to the flora and fauna that depend upon the waterways, or to water treatment plants, or to people in general.

In fact, it is no different than the hundreds of streams in Colorado that are naturally brimming with billions of tiny silver particles, thanks largely to the abundance of mineral silver in the soil there. Some of my favorite trout fishing streams, ponds and lakes in Colorado are full of mineral silver, both naturally, and due to silver being leached from surrounding silver mine tailings. Yet these streams are rich with micro-flora and macro-flora. And the fishing is wonderful.

So it’s ludicrous to assert that simply because silver is found in waterways or water treatment plants that it is somehow "dangerous" or "toxic." In reality, when it is found, it is generally bonded with other minerals, and is relatively inert.

More Environmentalist Exaggerations

You also ominously intoned, "Most filtration systems can’t stop these nano-sized particles from entering the water supply. More importantly, very little research has been done on the health effects from the resulting exposure to humans and animals."

If "these nanosilver particles" you speak of actually remained in their "nano" state once introduced into the environment, I could understand your concern. But they don't. As I stated, they agglomerate with other minerals and essentially become "dirt."

These large, agglomerated particles are then filtered from the drinking water before it is passed along to the consumer, just like dirt is. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that nanosilver from clothing or other sources is reaching consumers in any significant amounts through the water supply.

In fact, please, show me even one study documenting a significant uptick in the silver content of drinking water in any major city’s drinking water, from clothing embedded with nanosilver partticles, or for any other reason, for that matter.

What’s that you say? You can't? So much for the “cold truth,” huh?

And even if there were such evidence (which there is not), there is still ZERO evidence of any negative health consequences to humans from it. Zero is a far cry from the potentially serious health consequences you imply in your propaganda piece disguised as a news article.

Cracks and Crevices

Like most environmentalists, the foundation of your entire case against nanosilver is full of cracks and crevices. Indeed, environmentalist outcries against nanosilver have been hysterical at best. For example, recent calls by Friends of the Earth to ban colloidal silver products or regulate them as drugs (see here) were ludicrous at face value, being based on the idea that commercial nanosilver products are now so prevalent in American households they are preventing little children from being exposed to all of the germs needed to stimulate their budding immune systems.

I don't know about the kids being raised by the people who run Friends of the Earth, but my kids roll in the dirt, crawl across dirty floors, climb trees, swim in muddy ponds, play with the neighbors dogs and cats, catch bugs and lizards and frogs, suck on candy they’ve dropped on the floor, and last week I even caught one of them digging for "treasure" in a local dumpster. So I don't think they’re in any danger of failing to come into enough contact with germs to stimulate their budding immune systems.

And I certainly don’t think owning a "Benny the Bear" plush toy with fabric that's embedded with particles of nanosilver is going to create too sterile of an environment for them. Nevertheless, that's exactly what Friends of the Earth contend in their sensationalistic 26 page position paper on nanosilver (read about it, here), released in June of this year. It’s ludicrous. Hysterical. And utterly misleading.

Do the Right Thing!

Since you claim to be an award-winning (Pulitzer, yet!) investigative reporter who reveals the “cold truth” and "exposes health issues the corporations don't want you to know about," I'd like to see you write about far more serious problems, such as the literal cornucopia of pharmaceutical drugs now contaminating many of the community water supplies in our nation.

The fact that so many environmental groups are taking a pass on the very real issue of our nation's drug-polluted water supplies, and are instead making the ludicrous claim that simple, natural nanosilver poses a serious environmental threat, has led many people to conclude that the funding these groups are taking from foundations connected with major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer (see here) is tainting their vision at best, and utterly corrupting them at worst.

What say ye? Some actual “cold truth” on this subject would be a welcome change of pace.

Regards,

Spencer Jones

Helpful Links:

Colloidal Silver Kills Viruses

Colloidal Silver Cures MRSA

Make Your Own Colloidal Silver

The Colloidal Silver Secrets Video

The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual

The New Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator

The Immune Manual

Secrets of Natural Healing blog

The Authoritative Guide to Vaccine Legal Exemptions

Act NOW to Help Save Colloidal Silver From EPA Regulation!

ACT NOW TO HELP SAVE COLLOIDAL SILVER FROM EPA REGULATION!

As of today, there are only 11 days left to voice your opposition to the proposal for the EPA to regulate nanosilver products -- including colloidal silver -- as "pesticides."

As it stands, the main petition sponsor, the International Center For Technology Assessment (CTA) has drawn up a list of nanosilver products it claims needs to be regulated by EPA. Among that list are the four top brands of colloidal silver (Sovereign Silver, Meso Silver, ASAP Silver, Utopia Silver) as well as many lesser known brands.

This is clearly a ploy to regulate colloidal silver as a "pesticide" under the EPA's revised FIFRA regulations, which require you to prove your silver product causes no harm to beneficial microorganisms or other creatures in the environment.

Putting Colloidal Silver Manufacturers Out of Business

If the EPA begins to regulate colloidal silver as a "pesticide" under its revised FIFRA regulations, this will, in effect, unjustly put every colloidal silver manufacturer out of business.

The costs of proving that a colloidal silver product causes no harm to “ecologically sensitive” microorganisms in the environment would be prohibitive (environmental impact reports can cost millions of dollars), and the regulatory burden on colloidal silver manufacturers would be unsustainable.

EPA is taking public comments until January 20th, after which they will make their decision.

How to Stop Them From Regulating Silver As a "Pesticide"

We need hundreds or even thousands of people to let the EPA know that colloidal silver should not be included under these new regulations.

If you have a natural health advocacy organization or a health freedom organization, or an email customer list of colloidal silver users, or an email list of natural health users, please, please let your membership base know about this dire situation, and the short time we have left to stop it.

Direct your members or email recipients to post their comments against regulating silver as a “pesticide” on the EPA comment system (see web address and further instructions below).

Or have them email the EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson directly (see below) and let him know that there is no compelling need to regulate nanosilver products such as colloidal silver as “pesticides,” since there is no evidence whatsoever of any environmental harm having taken place.

How to Contact the EPA

Anyone who wants to post to the EPA comments system can do so at this web address:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=09000064807cd9b1

Anyone wishing to email EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson with their comments against the petition to have silver regulated as a “pesticide” can do so here:

johnson.stephen@epa.gov

Additionally, faxes can be sent to EPA, addressed to Administrator Stephen Johnson, at:

Fax: 202-501-1450

All comments must reference Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650.

Also, comments should reference the “Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver Products as Pesticides.”

To Learn More

To learn more details about this important issue, please read the two blog articles preceding this one at http://www.colloidalsilversecrets.blogspot.com/ if you have not done so already.

Don't Fall for the False Claims

As a last minute dodge to mislead the public, some organizations backing the petition to have EPA regulate nanosilver products as “pesticides” are claiming that the petition has nothing to do with colloidal silver. That is definitely wrong.

I repeat what I stated earlier: The main sponsor of the petition to have EPA regulate silver as a "pesticide" is the International Center For Technology Assessment (CTA), and they have attached a list of nanosilver products to the petition requesting the EPA begin regulatory oversight of these products immediately under the revised FIFRA regulations.

Among the products listed on this attachment to the petition were the top four brands of bottled colloidal silver products on the market today (Sovereign Silver, Meso Silver, ASAP Silver, Utopia Silver) along with numerous less well-known colloidal silver brands.

I wrote CTA and asked why the top four brands of bottled colloidal silver were on this petition, and their lawyer, Mr. George A. Kimbrell, responded. Here is his response:

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your interest in our legal petition to EPA. I’m one of the attorneys who drafted the action and your question was forwarded to me.

To clarify and answer your question: the only consumer products that were included in our product appendix attached to our legal petition were those products that in our research we found were actively marketing their products, through labeling or advertising, as “nano” (i.e., containing manufactured or engineered nanoparticles) and that made health claims based on that “nano” ingredient.

So if there are silver colloidal solution products in the appendix, they must be marketed (or were, as of May 2008, when we filed the petition) as nano-silver and we have documented evidence of such marketing claims.

The appendix was illustrative not comprehensive. We only highlighted these products for the agency to investigate; we did not test the products ourselves. The product appendix included only those self-identified nano-silver products we could find.

No doubt there are more nano-silver products available that are unlabeled and we are calling on the agency to investigate and apply its statutorily entrusted oversight to those products as well.

If said products in the appendix are not “nano,” then they need to remove the misleading and illegal claims on their advertising and marketing. 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.

As we explain in the petition, engineered and manufactured nanomaterials like nano-silver are new types of materials that required new forms of toxicity testing and data to properly assess their novel properties and associated potential risks. In our petition we are requesting that EPA properly analyze the health and environmental safety of these materials before permitting them to go to market.

Sincerely,

George A. Kimbrell gkimbrell@icta.org
Staff Attorney,
The Int'l Center For Technology Assessment & The Center For Food Safety
660 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E. Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20003
202-547-9359 fax 202-547-9429

Please note that he did not in any way, shape or form deny that his organization includes colloidal silver as a "nanosilver" product. He was very clear that as long as a colloidal silver product meets the standards for nano-silver, then he intends to have EPA regulate it.

Note also his comments, “No doubt there are more nano-silver products available that are unlabeled and we are calling on the agency to investigate and apply its statutorily entrusted oversight to those products as well."

In other words, they are petitioning EPA to go after any colloidal silver product that fits their overly-broad definition of "nanosilver."

The Clincher

Now here's the clincher: In other literature, CTA and its supporting coalition of organizations claim “nanosilver” is defined as silver particles of “100 nm in size or smaller.”

This effectively brings just about every brand of colloidal silver on the face of the earth under the “nanosilver” umbrella.

Is EPA Regulation of Colloidal Silver It a Foregone Conclusion?

I think the EPA has already decided in advance that they are going to take on this "regulatory oversight," which means they are ultimately going to stop production and sales of anything containing silver "nano particles" (under their definition of 100 nm or less) until it can be proven these particles won't cause harm to "ecologically sensitive" microorganisms and other creatures in the environment, which is basically impossible.

The only way to stop it is by a massive outpouring of opposition from the American public. The EPA does strongly take into account public comments in their decision-making process. We must turn up the heat and let the EPA know we are not happy with this ruse to destroy the colloidal silver market by regulating nanosilver as a “pesticide.”

The Anti-Silver Propaganda Machine

This ridiculous petition to the EPA was preceded by months of propaganda against "nanosilver" in the online "science news" media, such as at ScienceNews.org and ScienceDirect.com, both of which carried numerous stories about the alleged "dangers" of allowing "nanosilver" to get into the environment.

These “the-sky-is-falling” science news stories were then re-translated for the popular media, resulting in articles like "Nanotechnology sparks fears for the future" and "Scientists Think Small to Find 'Nano' Dangers," and the worst of all of the chicken little articles "Nanosilver fad poses 'serious risk to health'" – and dozens like this, all of these appearing in various popular online news media.

These guys are pretty smart in how they go about building justification for their position over a period of many months before unleashing their campaigns for "regulatory oversight." I'm afraid they have us out-maneuvered. We really need to swamp the EPA comments system on this petition to regulate “nanosilver” as a “pesticide” with rational, well-constructed comments against the idea.

Right now, the environmental groups and fake "consumer protection" groups have been stacking the EPA comments system with comments favorable to the idea of further EPA regulatory oversight of "nanosilver." They've done this by emailing their membership bases, and asking them to send in anti-silver comments to the EPA.

Get On the Ball and We Can Win!

The various natural health organizations and the health freedom community at large has been woefully behind on countering this massive anti-silver propaganda campaign.

That’s why we need you to get involved in this right away.

If you belong to a natural health advocacy group or health freedom organization, please contact the membership base and let them know what's going on. Give them the EPA contact information above. Urge them to email, fax, or post comments on the EPA web site, urging the EPA to reject the petition to regulate nanosilver products.

If you are in the natural health business and you have an email customer base, email your customers and explain the situation to them, as well as the dire need to act quickly. Give them the contact information above.

If you are simply a natural products user, go to the EPA web site above and post your comments in opposition to the petition to regulate nanosilver products as "pesticides." And pass this information along to all of your like-minded friends right away.

Anything you can do to help get the ball rolling in this direction will be a huge benefit. Unfortunately we have so little time. But that is the hand we’ve been dealt.

Regards,
S. Spencer Jones
http://www.LifeandHealthResearchGroup.com/


Important Links:

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