Click here to join the
Colloidal Silver Secrets
Community on Facebook
|
Click here to join the Colloidal Silver Secrets Community on Facebook |
|
|
How Junk Science Propaganda Against Colloidal Silver Gets Started
Will spraying
colloidal silver onto your skin, or coming into contact with consumer products
containing nanosilver, cause mutations, cancer, birth defects, or nervous
system damage?
You’d almost
think so, if you were to fall for the junk science propaganda being put out by
“science” and “medical” web sites these past few weeks.
But before
you allow yourself to get duped into abandoning your colloidal silver
altogether, or throwing away your silver-impregnated computer keyboard, here’s
a short course on how to recognize anti-silver propaganda when you see it.
Hi,
Steve Barwick here, for www.TheSilverEdge.com...
I
can’t remember a day in the past 10 years or longer that I haven’t sprayed
micro-particle colloidal silver (i.e., nanosilver) directly onto my skin.
After
my shower each day, I spray colloidal silver under my arms, directly onto my
face, in my eyes, and even on top of my head.
The
results: Far less underarm smell. Smoother skin on my face. No more sties in my eyes. No more dandruff.
Yet
in a press release distributed
by Iranian scientists at Tehran's Medical Sciences University, and re-published
in articles on numerous science and medical internet sites, researchers warned
that a new study demonstrates “caution should be taken” in coming into direct
contact with products containing nanosilver.
Here’s
what the press release stated:
|
Mitra Karani, of the toxicology department of the Medical Science
University of Tehran, Iran, said caution should be taken in using products
containing nanosilver that come in contact with the skin. Karani said, “The
emergence of nanotechnology and its wide applications in different industries
has drawn abundant attentions to its toxicology so that a new branch entitled nanotoxicology is introduced… …Given the
vast applications of nanosilver as an antibacterial substance and the lack of
information on its toxicological aspects, it is necessary to first focus on the
skin toxicity of this substance and second on the potential of its toxicity to
the organs caused by skin contacts.” Scientists at
the Medical Science University have undertaken a study to address the question
of dermal and systematic side effects of long-term use of products containing
silver nanoparticles. “Based on the
results, we can partly say that caution should be taken in using
products containing nanosilver which are in contact with skin. However, a
definite answer requires more researches on more dilutions and other aspects of
nanosilver toxicity like mutagenicity,
cargenocity, teratogenicity,
nervous toxicity, etc,” she said. |
“We
can partly say”?
What
the heck does that mean? And what
evidence does the press release present that consumer products containing nanosilver
caused any harm to the skin at
all?
Let’s
see now. Uh…ZERO. But they sure use the words “toxicity” and
“toxicology” a lot, don’t they?
You
see, these researchers are trying to create an entire new branch of research
called nanotoxicology. And of course, they’re picking on “nanosilver”
– today’s hip new scientific term for colloidal silver -- in order to do
so. Can you say “huge new source of
research grants?”
Carefully
note the scare tactic in this final paragraph from the above press release:
|
"However,
a definite answer requires more researches on more dilutions and other aspects
of nanosilver toxicity like mutagenicity,
cargenocity, teratogenicity,
nervous toxicity, etc." |
Oooh. Scary stuff.
The
implications of course being that if you come into contact with a product
containing nanosilver…
…such
as a computer keyboard, kitchen cutting board, a plastic food storage container
that has nanosilver incorporated into its makeup, or even a bit of bottled colloidal
silver…
…you
could be risking serious health issues such as mutations, cancer, birth
defects, and nervous system damage.
Oh,
Lord!
Of
course, the researchers are not saying they actually found any of these things in their study. Not at all.
As
a matter of fact, I’ve read the entire study, and they didn’t find any such harm. They’re just saying
they’d like to do additional studies to look at these possibilities.
What’s
more, it turns out the researchers didn’t use a single consumer product containing nanosilver in the study.
Not
one – in spite of the fact they conclude consumers should use caution in
regards to coming into direct contact with any product containing nanosilver!
Finally,
no nanosilver was ever tested on human skin in the entire study. (But wait until you find out what kind of
skin they did test it on!)
Nevertheless,
after reading the above press release, you’d have little choice but to come
away with the conclusion that products containing nanosilver are not only toxic
to human skin, but could also cause extremely serious health problems.
Do
you see how this works?
The
press release is very cleverly worded to impart the idea that the use of nanosilver
in consumer products is dangerous to humans.
But
in reality, everything the press release says is speculative and sensationalistic,
has little to do with the actual study, and is designed solely to scare
rather than educate.
Propaganda
Machine
Folks,
this is how the propaganda against colloidal silver gets started.
While
the press release quoted above doesn’t present even the slightest iota of
evidence against the use of antimicrobial silver in consumer products…
…you
can bet your bottom dollar that in the weeks and months directly ahead the
anti-silver environmentalists and other shills for Big Pharma
will cite the study mentioned in that press release…
…and
claim it provides stunning evidence against the use of antimicrobial silver in
consumer products.
What’s
more, web sites sponsored by Big Pharma, such as
WebMD, will likely footnote the study, and reference it as evidence against the
use of products like colloidal silver that can be applied topically.
Finally,
“medical” and “science” web sites will repeat the article, ad nauseum, replete with shrill headlines
like “New Study Shows Nanosilver Toxic to Skin!” or “Study Warns of Ill Effects
from Nanosilver to Human Skin!”
Indeed,
it’s already begun.
When
I googled the word “cargenocity”
from the above press release…
…I
found the release had been spread to more than 20 other web sites – thinly
disguised as “medical” and “science” articles…
…all
in just the few short weeks after the study was published in mid-August.
By
the way, there’s no such word as “cargenocity.” Not in
the English language. And
not in the medical literature. That’s
why I googled it when I found it in the above
article.
What
the researchers likely meant to say is carcinogenicity, meaning cancer-causing or tumor-causing.
That just goes to demonstrate the ridiculously low caliber
of research being touted here. These
Iranian researchers apparently don’t even know the proper terminology for the medical
conditions they wish to study.
But even that
doesn’t stop the scientific and medical press from dutifully quoting the press
release as if it were Gospel.
New
York Times, or National Enquirer?
If you dig a little further, you’ll find a much longer article on this nanosilver study in a newspaper
called Iran Daily.
An authoritative source, right? Must be the Iranian equivalent of the New York Times.
But the article, published in the Science section of
the paper, appears directly below an article titled “Ecstasy Can Treat
Cancers.”
What’s more, it’s positioned above an article titled
“Critters Moving Away From Global Warming.”
In other words, it’s more like the equivalent of the
National Enquirer of Iran. I almost expected to see an article like
“Iranian Bat Boy Stupefies Scientists!”
(For the sake of full disclosure, there have indeed
been studies demonstrating that an analogue of MMDA – the active ingredient in
the street drug Ecstasy – can be used to treat certain cancers. But at this point, the dose of Ecstasy
required to achieve anti-cancer benefits would be so high as to result in
overdose and death.)
In the Iran
Today article you’ll discover that the chief researcher in the nanosilver study,
Ms. Mitra Karani -- who
apparently has an “MSc” degree in toxicology from
Tehran Medical University –
-- used guinea
pigs as the test animals to determine whether or not nanosilver in consumer
products might be harmful to skin.
(I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume
Ms. Karani isn’t the one who doesn’t know how to properly
spell carcinogenicity.)
Why use a guinea pig? According to Ms. Karani in the article from Iran Daily, “Because of its high skin sensitivity.”
Well, that’s fair, isn’t it? Take an animal already noted for “high skin
sensitivity” and expose it to nanosilver.
Then come out with blaring headlines that consumer products containing nanosilver
are dangerous.
Of course, you don’t find out the researchers were
studying guinea pig skin and not
human skin, unless you find the longer article in the Iran Daily!
The press release that’s being distributed to dozens
of web sites fails to mention that fact completely -- all the while warning
that contact with nanosilver could be “harmful” to human skin!
But wait, there’s more chicanery. In fact, it only gets worse…
Digging
a Little Deeper
Digging into this story a little deeper, I finally found the study
abstract from the International
Journal of Nanomedicine. Here’s what
it tell us:
“Toxic responses were assessed by clinical and histopathologic
parameters. In all experimental animals the sites of exposure were scored for
any type of dermal toxicity and compared with negative control and positive
control groups.
In autopsy studies during the acute test, no significant changes
in organ weight or major macroscopic changes were detected, but dose-dependent histopathologic abnormalities were seen in skin, liver, and
spleen of all test groups.
In addition, experimental animals subjected to subchronic
tests showed greater tissue abnormalities than the subjects of acute tests. It
seems that colloidal nanosilver has the potential to provide target organ
toxicities in a dose- and time-dependent manner.”
Now that’s interesting. A lot of science and
medical terminology. I’ll try to
boil it down:
The study found no significant “macroscopic” changes
(i.e., no big changes) from exposure to nanosilver in the short-term (i.e.,
acute) portion of the study.
But it did find small “dose-dependent histopathologic abnormalities” from exposure to nanosilver in
the “skin, liver, and spleen of all test groups.”
In other words, the higher the dosage of nanosilver the
researchers used, the more tiny abnormalities they found.
Additionally, in the long-term (i.e., subchronic) portion of the study – even greater tissue
abnormalities were found.
In fact, the longer they used the nanosilver on the
guinea pigs, and the more highly concentrated the dose, the more tissue
abnormalities they discovered.
Now that sounds potentially serious. So I dug further.
After all, even the study abstract didn’t give me
the four key pieces of information I was looking for, i.e.,
…how much nanosilver was used on these poor little guinea pigs?…
…how long was it used for?…
…how was it applied?…
…and finally, how does this extrapolate to human contact with
nanosilver?
The abstract then led me to a PDF copy of the full study, which
you can find here.
As
I began reading the study I wondered what surprises I’d find. I didn’t have long to wait. Under the topic
“Experimental Animals and Housing” I found the following:
“Forty-eight
experimental male Hartley albino guinea pigs were obtained from the
Pasteur Institute of Iran at five to six weeks of age and 350 to 450 g body
weight.”
So the study on the effects
of nanosilver on skin were conducted on tiny
ALBINO guinea pigs just a tad over a month old, and weighing just 12 to 15
ounces apiece!
Uhhmm…by
definition, isn’t albino skin different than normal skin?
So this is what the chief
researcher meant when she said she used animals with “high skin sensitivity”? Apparently so.
But did you see a single news headline screaming “Study Shows Tiny Albino
Guinea Pigs Should Avoid Contact With Nanosilver Products”? Nope.
Indeed, every single article I was able to find about this study
completely “overlooked” that crucial bit of information, and crowed about the
potential dangers to humans of coming
into contact with nanosilver.
You see, the propaganda machine knows if they included the fact
that the study was conducted on tiny albino
guinea pigs – it would detract from their ability to scare people away from
using products containing antimicrobial silver.
People are intelligent enough to know that a study on the effects
of nanosilver on the skin of a 12-ounce albino guinea pig doesn’t have much
relevance to them.
Indeed, knowing the study was conducted on tiny albino guinea pigs
– and not on humans -- most people
would surmise that the study had been purposely
set up to demonstrate skin toxicity from nanosilver right from the start.
How Much
Nanosilver Was Used?
As I mentioned earlier, not a single
consumer product containing nanosilver was used in the study. Nevertheless, the study was widely proclaimed
to demonstrate that people should avoid contact with such products.
In reality, the study reveals that the researchers utilized raw silver nanoparticles that were mixed
into a liquid solution.
What’s more, each of the tiny albino guinea pigs had 10% of their
body hair shaved down to the skin each day, and the raw silver nanoparticles were essentially globbed
onto their skin several times a day for periods ranging between 14 days and a
whopping 13 weeks.
The silver was then covered with gauze, and the gauze was in turn
glued – yes, glued – to their bodies!
Of course, the nicks, cuts and lacerations from shaving the skin
of those tiny critters each day would likely be more than enough to provide a
pathway to increased absorption of raw nanosilver directly into their
bodies.
And who knows what effect the glue
applied to their bodies each day could have had?
So should we at all be surprised the researchers found “histopathologic tissue abnormalities”? Really?
And still the question remained unanswered: How much nanosilver were
the tiny albino guinea pigs actually exposed to using this strange methodology?
Under the section of the study on “Materials and Methods” I
finally found the answer to that question:
“Three
different aqueous solutions (100, 1000, and 10,000 μg/mL) were provided by Dr K Gilani
in the Pharmaceutics Lab., Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical
Sciences.”
The liquid nanosilver solutions were, respectively, 100 ppm, 1,000 ppm and 10,000 ppm. (The term “ug/mL” denotes ppm in medical talk.)
Wow. These tiny, barely
over a month old guinea pigs weighing just 12 to 15 ounces apiece, were subjected to repeated daily applications – for up to 13 weeks on end – of 100
ppm, 1,000 ppm and even 10,000 ppm of raw nanoparticle silver.
For a human that would be the equivalent of approximately 20,000 ppm,
200,000 ppm and 2,000,000 ppm (yes, two million
ppm), respectively – ungodly levels for daily exposure over a total of 10% of
your body!
Of course, literally NO ONE using a consumer product – such as a
computer keyboard with nanosilver incorporated into its makeup -- is ever going
to be exposed to even as much as 100 ppm of silver nanoparticles…not even in years of daily use of the product.
The idea is ludicrous at best.
After all, silver is expensive.
And just enough nanosilver is used in consumer products to keep
microbial growth at a bare minimum. And
the nanosilver is infused evenly into
the product.
You’d have to come into contact with dozens of nansosilver consumer products
every single day, and somehow absorb all
of the silver out of them upon contact, in order to be exposed to 100 ppm
worth of nanosilver, much less 1,000 ppm or 10,000 ppm.
And of course, the human equivalent of the above numbers would be impossible to become exposed to from a typical
nanosilver consumer product – even over an entire lifetime of usage.
Yet these tiny albino guinea pigs were exposed to nanosilver
concentrations of 100 ppm, 1,000 ppm, and even 10,000 ppm daily – and directly onto the shaved skin constituting a full 10%
of their body mass.
Do you see how ridiculous and sensationalistic the conclusions
being drawn from this study are?
The study has no foundation in real-life – yet the researchers
draw real-life conclusions from their
study and then spread the ominous “nanosilver is dangerous” message across the
internet.
And what did the researchers discover from this ludicrous study?
“All observed
toxic skin responses were dose- and time-dependent, which means that greatest histopathologic changes were seen in the 10,000 μg/mL group in the 13-week
study and the lowest in the 100 μg/mL group in the acute test (Figure 4E).”.
Ah, yes. They discovered
that the highest rate of “toxic” skin responses corresponded with the most
excessive levels of highly concentrated nanosilver used for the longest period
of time.
The 10,000 ppm nanosilver produced greater changes to the skin and
tissues of the tiny albino guinea pigs exposed to it daily for weeks on end,
than the 100 ppm nanosilver did when used in shorter term periods. Big surprise, right?
The study authors even admit the following in the summary of the
study:
“Although the
concentrations of nanosilver were high and unrealistic, to our knowledge
this is the first study on dermal and systemic toxicity of nanosilver in acute
and subchronic treatment.”
Listen, the concentrations of nanosilver weren’t just “high and
unrealistic.” They were so high they
made the study irrelevant –
-- particularly in regards to consumer
products that incorporate relatively miniscule amounts of nanosilver into their
makeup in order to help prevent microbial growth.
Honestly, I know I’ve repeated this term several times already,
but ludicrous is the only word I can
think of to describe this entire study.
Of course, in the press release put out by the researchers, you
didn’t see the admission that “high and unrealistic” concentrations of
nanosilver were used on tiny albino guinea pigs, right?
Nor will you find it in any of the news articles being published
across the internet on the medical and science news sites.
Nope.
The researchers didn’t bother to tell the public how the study was
actually conducted, or how contrived its sensationalistic conclusions were in
regards to consumer products containing nanosilver.
You had to track down the study in order to find all of that out.
The sensationalistic headlines “Nanosilver Toxic to Skin” were
designed solely to scare the public
away from using products containing nanosilver, not to tell the truth about the study.
Agenda-Driven
Science
As you can see, you can prove just about anything you want when you have an underlying
agenda, and you’re willing to go to exaggerated lengths to fulfill it.
For example, what would have happened if the
researchers had applied excessively high levels of some other commonly used consumer
product to the sensitive shaved skin of these albino guinea pigs?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, they used a
highly concentrated 1000% hydrogen peroxide solution instead of the normal 3%
hydrogen peroxide solution a normal human would use on their skin?
Considering the fact that a mere 35% hydrogen
peroxide solution will burn human skin in
seconds…
…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that
a highly concentrated 1000% solution used repeatedly for days and even weeks on
end would burn holes right through the skin of those poor little critters…
…and there would have been massive damage to
internal tissues and organs as well!
But the researchers could then release press reports
on their study, replete with blaring headlines saying “Hydrogen Peroxide Shown
to Be Toxic!” and warn people not to use hydrogen peroxide products.
Of course, the press reports would all cleverly fail
to mention that tiny albino guinea pigs were used in the study…
…and that the levels of hydrogen peroxide used were
many multitudes of times above normal human levels, and the exposure was for
excessively long periods of time.
Do you see how this works?
I’m just trying to get the point across that you can
pick anything – even something as
innocuous as, say, citrus juice…
…and if you concentrate it strongly enough and then
apply it repeatedly over a relatively long period of time to the
hyper-sensitive shaved skin of a tiny albino guinea pig, you’re going to be
able to “prove” that contact with citrus juice is “toxic.”
But in reality, all you’ve done is demonstrated what
a sneaky magician (i.e., agenda-driven scientist) you really are.
Protective
Effect of Silver on Skin and Human Cells
Study after study has demonstrated the protective effects of silver on human
cells -- including skin -- when properly utilized in moderation and common
sense.
Indeed, a powerful silver ointment known as silver sulfadiazine, has for decades now
been the #1 treatment for the healing of skin and prevention of infection in
hospital burn wards, world-wide!
Hundreds of thousands of serious burn victims have
been treated with silver sulfadiazine, and in many
cases have had their lives saved by it.
What’s more, silver coated nylon fabric and bandages
are now routinely used directly on the skin of patients in hospital and home
settings to cover open wounds and surgical incisions, in order to prevent
infection and maintain optimal conditions for rapid healing.
In a clinical study conducted at Syracuse Medical
University, titled “Effects
of Electrically Generated Silver Ions on Human Cells and Wound Healing,” Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D., demonstrated that electrically generated
silver ions triggered astonishing skin and soft tissue healing.
In fact, in this study he demonstrated that brand
new stem cells were actually produced when electrically generated silver was
applied to infected wounds, and rapid new skin and tissue growth took place!
Dr. Becker also noted that “no overt local or
systemic side effects were noted,” even though he was generating silver
directly into the infected wounds on a continuous basis for weeks on end.
Dr. Becker further noted, “Open cavities began to fill with abundant, healthy granulation tissue,
producing rapid coverage of exposed bone surfaces. This was followed by rapid ingrowth of full-thickness, innervated skin, and healing of
bony non-unions.”
In
the bestselling book The pH Miracle:
Balance Your Body, Reclaim Your Health by Dr. Robert O. Young, PhD. (pgs 137-138), there’s an account of
dramatic healing of severely burned skin by applying colloidal silver
topically, multiple times per day:
"I
was told I had second-and third-degree burns on my face and third-degree burns
on my hands….
…the
very next day my mother brought me colloidal silver, with directions to use it
externally and internally as frequently as possible, because it assists in
growth of new tissue.
She
had learned from Dr. Young that silver's positive electrical charge counters
the negative charge of a damaged body area, bringing it back into balance and
enabling the body to regenerate and heal itself.
Mom
sprayed undiluted colloidal silver onto the burned areas, and I took it by
drops under my tongue…
…My
mother applied the silver many times a day. It was absorbed into my skin
instantly. It felt cool and tingling and loosened the tension on my face,
hands, and fingertips…
…After
only one day of treatment with silver, it was obvious the healing was happening
very rapidly. New tissue and skin grew back at an accelerated pace.
The
swelling of my head diminished rapidly and the breathing apparatus came off
almost immediately.
The
plastic surgeon told me I was healing twice as fast as any burn patient he had
ever seen in his long career."
And as Dr. Ron Surowitz, head of the Florida
Osteopathic Medical Association, states regarding the use of colloidal silver
for skin conditions such as stubborn acne and facial infections:
“...Some of my teenage patients with facial
skin infections seem to do well with a spray of colloidal silver on the skin
and into the mouth once or twice daily. Sometimes higher amounts are needed.
This
certainly beats taking antibiotics for years and years to prevent these skin
conditions...
It's
interesting how many of my patients improve with the use of Colloidal Silver.
It enhances the immune system whereas antibiotic drugs cause yeast
overgrowth...”
In
short, silver has been used topically in an astonishing number of cases, over
many decades, and has demonstrated remarkable healing to human cells, skin and
tissue.
Naturally,
these uses were generally in moderation, and were conducted with common sense –
quite unlike the study using 10,000 ppm nanosilver on the skin of highly
sensitive tiny albino guinea pigs for weeks on end!
What’s more, nanosilver has been used in cosmetics
as a preservative for decades. In other
words, when women add their foundation, blush, eye shadow or gloss, they may
very well be painting their skin with silver nanoparticles, as well.
As Julie Gabriel, author of The Green Beauty Guide, has stated:
"Since
medieval times silver has been used as a bactericidal agent that helps heal
skin abrasions and burns…
…In natural cosmetics, colloidal silver makes a safe and nonirritating
preservative with an added anti-inflammatory bonus.
I do recommend
colloidal silver in my book, The Green Beauty Guide, as an alternative to paraben and formaldehyde preservatives.”
And really…that’s
the point.
Nanosilver should replace the use of truly toxic materials such as formaldehyde that
are commonly used as preservatives in a variety of consumer products that are applied
to the skin.
The Bottom
Line
The
bottom line is that the Iranian researchers used tiny albino guinea pigs known
to have hyper-sensitive skin, shaved 10% of their skin each day and exposed
them to excessively high concentrations of nanosilver up to 10,000 ppm daily
for up to 13 weeks.
Then
they sent out press releases warning of potentially dire consequences of HUMAN
exposure to consumer products
containing nanosilver, without ever revealing that not a single nanosilver
consumer product was ever tested.
On
top of that, they salted their press releases with ominous references to
potential “carcinogenicity,” “mutagenicity,” “teratogenicity” and “nervous toxicity,” even though in
reality the study didn’t examine any
of those factors.
And
of course, much to their shame, the medical, scientific, environmental and
popular news media have dutifully picked up on the press release from these
researchers…
…and
have repeated the manufactured, sensationalistic “evidence” against nanosilver
without even so much as a critical glance at this dubious study.
After
all, sensationalism sells. And pesky
facts and details are largely considered to be inconsequential in today’s media.
It’s Happened
Before
Has
this type of rank exaggeration, sensationalism and misdirection (bordering on
fraud, in my opinion) ever happened before?
Yes,
of course.
Readers
might well remember the screaming headlines “Nanosilver Harms Cells” back in
2009, at the height of the campaign by radical anti-silver environmentalists to
force the EPA to ban consumer products containing nanosilver.
The
environmental groups, which it turns out had been taking
huge amounts of money from charitable foundations associated with Big Pharma, claimed a “major new study” had proven the cytotoxic (i.e., cell
damaging) effects of nanosilver.
Here’s
exactly what they said:
"Yet
another major study on nano-silver toxicity has been published…The study found
that nano-silver used in food storage materials, such as plastic bags and
containers, can directly interact with genomes and bind with DNA, interfering
with DNA replication.
Hundreds of
consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now
on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing,
electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging, many of
which contain nano-silver. Help us ensure that these products are safe by
supporting our petition to the EPA."
But
when the actual study was tracked down and examined, the real truth
emerged:
·
First, it turned out to be a very small study conducted by a little-known research center in Red China…not
a “major study” as the environmentalists contended.
·
Secondly, the research center in China that conducted the study
had known ties to several large pharmaceutical companies specializing in the
manufacture of prescription antibiotic drugs.
No conflict of interest there, right?
·
Thirdly, the study was actually conducted on the effects of
nanosilver on E. coli cell cultures. That’s right, not human cell cultures, but bacterial
cell cultures!
(See this article for full details on the study.)
In the end,
all the study really demonstrated was that nanosilver destroys infectious
microorganisms such as E. coli, which of course, has been known for decades.
Indeed, this
is one of the reasons people use antimicrobial
silver in the first place!
But the radical anti-silver environmentalists screamed from the rooftops that
the study proved silver used in consumer products was harmful – to humans!
This same
tactic has been used over and over again – for example, in the infamous “Fathead Minnow” study that was
claimed to demonstrate nanosilver leaching from consumer products would be
toxic to fish in the wild.
Of course,
rather than studying the effects of nanosilver on fish in the wild, the
researchers simply filled a fish tank with some poor minnows and began filling
it with increasingly higher and higher concentrations of nanosilver until toxic
effects were observed.
They could
have done the same thing with Kool-Aid, of course. Or any other relatively
innocuous substance. After all,
at some concentration, everything is
“toxic” if you’re drenched in it for days or weeks on end!
But this is
how the anti-silver propagandists work to scare the public into turning against
the use of antimicrobial silver in consumer products.
In
Conclusion…
Unfortunately,
agenda-driven junk science is now the rule, rather than the exception –
particularly where nanosilver is concerned.
There
seems to be an all-out full court press to taint antimicrobial silver of any
kind with the broad brush stroke of “toxicity”…
…in spite of the fact that silver has been used safely for
millennia in human health and as a topical disinfectant.
Indeed, according to a study from the
for the last
120 years antimicrobial silver has been used in the form of colloidal silver –
or what’s now called ‘nanosilver’ – with no
significant safety issues whatsoever when used at reasonable, common-sense
levels.
In
fact, the first known ‘nanosilver’ (i.e., colloidal silver) was produced way
back in 1899.
And
since that time nanosilver in many forms has been widely used as a disinfectant
in swimming
pools and spas, and even on the space shuttle…
…on
boats and luxury cruise liners……as well as being used internally and externally by millions
of natural health enthusiasts as an infection-fighting agent.
So
the next time you see sensationalistic news headlines claiming a new study has
demonstrated antimicrobial silver to be “toxic to humans,” don’t depend solely
on the news article for your information.
Instead,
be sure to get your bullshit meter out, track down the study and read it
carefully, word for word.
As
you read it, watch for the pertinent study details, like how much silver was used…for
how long was it used…and exactly what was it actually used on.
Then,
compare that to the shrill claims in the press release or news articles about
the study.
When
you see terms like “albino guinea pigs” or “Fathead Minnows” or “10,000 ppm,” be
sure to check your bullshit meter frequently.
The readings will probably be off the charts.
Trust
me. Only in this manner will you be able
to differentiate whether or not the study is even remotely relevant to human
use of antimicrobial silver.
Yours for the
safe, sane and responsible use of
colloidal silver,
Steve
Barwick, author
The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual
P.S. Clearly, the media onslaught against
nanosilver and other forms of colloidal silver continues unabated.
It
seems like hardly a week goes by that a brand new media attack against
antimicrobial silver isn’t launched, either by the anti-silver
environmentalists, or the medical establishment.
This
is a propaganda tactic called “saturation.”
By
inundating the public with barrage after barrage of negative news against
antimicrobial silver – however untrue – eventually the public becomes saturated with the information, and begins
to believe it.
After all, it seems like “everybody” is saying
antimicrobial silver is dangerous.
During
WWII, enemy propagandists used the same tactic.
As master Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels purportedly stated, “If you
repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.”
Of
course, the reason for this tidal wave of lies being repeated against
antimicrobial silver is that Big Pharma doesn’t want
the public to be able to cure their own infections with a few cents worth of
colloidal silver.
Nor
do they want the public to be able to curtail the spread of infectious
microorganisms by using consumer products that incorporate antimicrobial silver
into their makeup.
So
the media drum beats continue unabated against antimicrobial silver – week
after week, month after month, year after year -- until eventually the public
becomes convinced silver is “dangerous.”
Then
the medical and environmental bureaucrats can begin restricting the public’s
access to antimicrobial silver, under the guise of “protecting” them from a
clear and present threat to their health and well-being.
We
are already well into that process, with the EPA’s
recent tactic of imposing heavy fines on companies for advertising the
antimicrobial benefits of nanosilver in consumer products.
The
solution:
First,
learn to discern the difference between the truth
about antimicrobial silver, and the tidal wave of lies being created to discredit its use.
In
this article, I hope I’ve helped open your eyes to some of the egregious
propaganda tactics being used to discredit safe, natural antimicrobial silver.
Secondly,
beat the medical and environmental bureaucrats at their own game by learning how to produce your own antimicrobial silver using a high-quality
colloidal silver generator.
Once
you own the means of production, they can never take it away from you.
Sure,
they can ban the commercial sales of colloidal silver products. They can even restrict the usage of
antimicrobial silver in consumer products.
But
once you own a high-quality colloidal silver generator…
…they
simply can’t stop you from making
your own antimicrobial silver in the comfort and privacy of your own home…
…and
using it to protect your household and your family members against infection
and disease.
Learn
more about the powerful infection-fighting qualities of colloidal silver at this link.
And
learn 7 good reasons to make your own colloidal silver at this link.
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
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.
