Scientist Roy
MacCuspie has admonished nanosilver researchers to take into account the
varying characteristics of the antimicrobial substance when conducting research
into its supposed toxicity.
He says
researchers, above all, need to “do good science” when researching nanosilver. But is he really a proponent of “good
science”? Or is he all-too willing to
sacrifice good science at the altar of compromise?
In
this news
article a
scientist named Dr. Robert MacCuspie, of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, appears on the surface to be taking a rational approach to research
into the supposed “toxicity” of antimicrobial nanosilver in relation to its use
in consumer products.
According
to the article, Dr. MacCuspie is admonishing his fellow nanosilver researchers
to “do good science.”
“Hypothesis
Testing”…
But
what’s most interesting to me is that Dr. MacCuspie specifically admits the
fact that some research to date has been “hypothesis testing,” which he describes
as studies in which “massive amounts” of nanosilver are used in laboratory
environments to “explore the worst-case scenario.”
I
propose, however, that this type of testing should be called “researcher bias demonstrations”
rather than “hypothesis testing.”
Why? Because to date we’ve seen far too many
examples in which the researchers – usually environmentalists by profession --
all too often start out with the preconceived
bias that nanosilver is so toxic to humans, animals and the environment it
needs to be eliminated from commercial products altogether.
These
researchers then set the parameters of their laboratory experiments to such artificially
high levels that their preconceived bias of nanosilver “toxicity” cannot help
but be “proven.”
The Infamous
Fathead Minnow Study
For
example, in my article Silver Is
Toxic to Fathead Minnows I discuss the study conducted by environmental researchers at
Purdue University, in which they claim to have demonstrated conclusively that
silver nanoparticles are “toxic” fish.
This
research was clearly done to “prove” the oft-stated environmentalist contention
that if silver nanoparticles are allowed to make their way into the
environment, an ecological catastrophe of immense proportions will ensue.
Indeed,
the Purdue researchers, in my opinion, were so determined to prove their preconceived
biases against nanosilver they appear to have abandoned all sense of scientific
propriety in the course of conducting their study.
Not
only did these researchers continue to add silver nanoparticles to an artificial
laboratory habitat full of poor little fathead minnows (a common test fish) until
reaching excessively high levels that would virtually never be seen in real-world conditions…
…but
they also sonicated the solution so
that the nanosilver stayed suspended in the water where the poor little minnows
would be exposed to it every second of
the day, 24 hours a day.
In
real-world conditions, nanosilver tends to fall to the bottom of watery
environments such as rivers, lakes and streams, where it becomes bound to
sulfur and other minerals, losing its “nano” characteristics in the process,
and essentially becoming inert.
This
is why, for example, the lakes and streams around Colorado’s silver-mining
districts are literally teaming with fish and other wildlife – from tiny microscopic
critters to tiny minnows to trophy trout -- in spite of the high trace mineral silver
content of these bodies of water.
And
it’s why the oceans of the world are also literally teaming with fish, wildlife
and microflora, in spite of the fact there’s millions of tons of trace mineral silver content in them.
But
the Purdue researchers didn’t attempt to duplicate real-world conditions. Not at all.
Indeed, they appear to have purposely created artificial conditions that
could only “prove” their preconceived bias of nanosilver toxicity.
Naturally,
the bias of the researchers against nanosilver were borne out in the study
results. And thus were borne screaming
news headlines “Nanosilver Found to Be Toxic to Fish” that were flashed around
the world via the internet after the study results were released.
And
of course, anti-silver environmentalist groups then touted the study as proof
positive that all commercial products containing nanosilver need to be
immediately pulled from the market in order to “save the environment.”
Is Milk Toxic to Fathead Minnows?
But
as I point out in my article, the researchers could have conducted the same
experiment using common minerals like iron, or copper or even calcium or salt. Indeed, they could have used rather innocuous
substances like sugar, milk, grape juice or virtually ANY substance. And guess what? They’d have gotten the same results as long as they allowed their bias to control the
study parameters.
For
example, had they added milk to the laboratory minnow habitat until the little
minnows croaked from fat deposits in their gills, would you have seen screaming
headlines saying “Milk Found to Be Toxic to Fish”?
And
would you have had environmentalist groups touting the milk study as “proof”
that all commercial products containing milk need to be pulled from the market
immediately in case the substance ever “makes its way into the environment”?
Naturally,
such a ruse wouldn’t have worked because people are intimately familiar with milk,
and would see through the deception immediately. They would know the “research” was nothing
more than sensationalistic junk science
designed to justify a researcher’s particular bias against milk.
Taking
Advantage of Public Ignorance
But
unfortunately, the public is largely ignorant of antimicrobial nanosilver. And therefore many people are easily misled
on the subject by highly biased anti-silver activists.
Indeed,
nanosilver is all-too-often described in breathless, emotion-laden terms by the
environmentalist researchers as a “brand new untested substance” with “unknown
qualities” that’s being “engineered using nanotechnology” (oh, my!) and is
“thought to be highly toxic” even while it’s being “indiscriminately introduced
into hundreds of commercial products.”
So
in reality, we’ve been exposed to nanosilver in varying degrees throughout the millennia! Yet to date all of this exposure to
nanosilver has not resulted in a single environmental or public health crisis,
or even the slightest of problems, for that matter. (See study, 120 Years of
Nanosilver History: Implications for Policy Makers.)
But
that doesn’t seem to stop obviously biased researchers from conducting studies purposely designed from the outset to
“prove” the supposed toxicity of nanosilver.
And
when these biased studies are combined with overblown rhetoric from the
anti-silver environmentalist crowd, and plastered all over the internet by a
compliant news media more intent on delivering sensationalistic headlines
rather than real news, the nanosilver detractors are able to frighten the
public into believing nanosilver is the modern-day equivalent of nuclear
radiation or asbestos.
The
reality, of course, is quite the opposite.
For over 120 years nanosilver has had one of the best toxicological
profiles of all substances used in
commercial products. As Keith Moeller of American Biotech Labs has pointed out,
nanosilver is so innocuous compared to common consumer products like laundry
bleach, even huge spills don’t have
to be reported:
“A chlorine-type cleaning product (found for
open purchase on store shelves right now) has a toxic spill rating of about
three gallons, meaning that a spill of three gallons or more must be reported
to the EPA and handled by HAZMAT authorities.
In
comparison, American Biotech Labs’ 32 ppm nano-silver product has a toxic spill
rating of 12,500,000 gallons. An oil tanker will hold about a million gallons,
which means that 12.5 oil tankers full of the ASAP nano silver disinfectant
would have to spill their entire loads of the product together to be deemed a
toxic event to the environment.”
Agenda-Driven
(Junk) Science
In
short, researchers who start out with a particular bias tend to tilt their
study parameters to support that bias.
It’s called agenda-driven (junk) science, and it’s rampant.
As
I’ve pointed out time and time again, there’s not a single substance on the face of the earth that you can’t
demonstrate to be “toxic” at some excessive level of contact or intake.
As
Paracelsus, a physician living over 400 years ago who is often referred to as
the "Grandfather of Pharmacology,” wisely observed, “The dose is the
poison.”
In
other words, a little bit of a certain substance might be very beneficial to
consumers, but too much can be potentially deadly. This is true of sugar, salt, tobacco,
alcohol, pharmaceutical drugs…hey…even water
is toxic at a certain level of intake (it’s called “drowning”).
But
we don’t regulate them all into oblivion.
Some of them we trust the public to self-regulate. And others with more egregious toxic
characteristics – such as pharmaceutical drugs -- we regulate by conducting (hopefully)
unbiased research that helps establish reasonable parameters of use or contact,
and then enforcing those parameters for the public good.
Science
once understood this. But the
agenda-driven anti-silver crowd has cast this wisdom aside in favor of the
mantra that silver toxicity at any
level in unacceptable, no matter how unlikely it would ever be encountered in
real-world conditions. And the very real
antimicrobial benefits to consumers from exposure to reasonable levels of
nanosilver be damned!
Most
people simply don’t realize the unethical and unscientific lengths some
researchers will go to in order to justify their own internal bias – including conducting
studies that use artificially high levels of an otherwise innocuous substance (like
nanosilver) and then claiming this as proof the substance needs to be banned
from commercial use altogether.
Following the
Script
If
researchers were intent on finding out how much nanosilver is “too much,” so
that the public could be protected from excessive levels, they’d get no
argument from me.
If
you’ve been watching, you’ve seen this kind of bias time and time again. Real science is often thrown out the window
in favor of agenda-driven junk science.
For
example, the recent study demonstrating no harm to
trout from nanosilver exposure was discarded by the environmentalists in favor of the highly
biased “study” conducted in an artificial laboratory environment demonstrating significant
harm to fathead minnows from nanosilver exposure.
The
bottom line is that the anti-silver environmentalist camp frequently
cherry-picks only those studies that
match their anti-silver bias, and casts aside any study that doesn’t.
Unscrupulous
Bias
You
might also remember, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency scientist
who was recently fired from his job (well, “asked to resign”) after being
caught on video tape urging his fellow environmentalists to help “crucify” the
oil companies.
That
same biased mentality dominates too much of the environmentalist research into nanosilver
today. Almost all of it is of the hysterical,
agenda-driven, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it variety.
For
example, check out the delirious research described in this article which supposedly demonstrates nanosilver is “killing the planet” by
triggering “climate change.” You’ll see
what I mean. The charges against
nanosilver by the anti-silver environmentalists are often bordering on the
insane.
Stuck in the
Middle With You…
As
I pointed out earlier, Dr. MacCuspie casually refers to this kind of junk
science research as “hypothesis testing” and says it’s designed to determine
“worst case scenarios.”
I
propose, if he truly wants to “do
good science” as he admonishes other researchers, he needs to start with the
admission that much of the “hypothesis testing” to date has been hysterical, agenda-driven
nonsense, and should be discarded altogether.
In
the news article, Dr. MacCuspie goes on to state that “hypothesis testing” of
nanosilver needs to be balanced with
“testing that’s aimed at simulating real-world conditions.”
I
couldn’t agree more with doing testing that simulates real-world
conditions. And I applaud Dr. MacCuspie
for this contention.
But
why in the world should bona-fide, unbiased
real-world studies on nanosilver be “balanced” against the overblown
“hypothesis testing” that so readily gives way to biased conclusions and
sensationalistic headlines designed to deceive and frighten the general public?
Dr.
MacCuspie, however, states that “…we’re really trying to do our best to meet in the middle.”
Really? Meet in the middle? I think that’s a pseudo-scientific copout of
immense proportions at best, and a grave public disservice, at worst. You don’t
compromise real-world science with junk science by saying “Let’s meet somewhere
in the middle.”
Instead,
you should toss the junk science “hypothesis testing” studies into the East
River, conduct the real-world studies, and come to some honest, unbiased conclusions that truly balance consumer safety against
the benefits of using antimicrobial silver in consumer products.
Benefit and Protect the Public
In
that light, I have to give Dr. MacCuspie kudos for stating that understanding
the potential risk of a product consists of “basically balancing the toxicity
of a substance against the level of exposure.”
Absolutely! That’s crucial to understanding how much
nanosilver should be used in a given commercial product so that the desired
antimicrobial benefits are achieved without
later risk to the consumer or the environment.
The
article about Dr. MacCuspie concludes by saying, “If policymakers within
federal agencies see 20 papers saying nanosilver is toxic, and 20 papers saying
it’s not, they’re left with a muddle.”
Indeed. But if these policy makers would grow a set
of cajones and do their jobs by
throwing out the nanosilver studies that were nothing more than sensationalistic
junk science disguised as “hypothesis testing”…
…and
only consider the studies based on
real-world conditions that were conducted without bias against nanosilver…then the environmental regulators could make
sane policy that would both benefit and
protect the public.
It’s
my contention that allowing the use of nanosilver in consumer products at
levels that demonstrate antimicrobial benefit without harm to the public health
or the environment should be the only
real goal of current and future research.
The
widespread public use of nanosilver for the past 120 years has not caused any significant environmental or public
health concerns. So research that’s
clearly been designed to demonstrate a need to ban the use of nanosilver in consumer products should simply be
filed in the “Journal of Ludicrous Conclusions” and ignored.
Yours for the
safe, sane and responsible use of
colloidal silver,
Helpful Links:
Important Note and
Disclaimer: The contents of this Ezine have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and
reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and
reliability thereof. The author, Steve
Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience
writing professionally about natural health topics. He is not
a doctor. Therefore, nothing stated in
this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of
this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical
advice. Nothing reported herein is
intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The author is simply reporting in
journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of
journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage. Therefore, the information and data presented
should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with
caution. Readers should verify for
themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources
such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas,
conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein. All important health care decisions should be
made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and
experienced health care professional.
Readers are solely responsible for their choices. The author and publisher disclaim
responsibility or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a
result of the use or application of any information included in this Ezine.
Copyright
2012 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ
85380-1239 | All rights reserved
Posts
