Another “Health Guru” Mindlessly Trashes Nanosilver
It’s sad when people you can normally rely on for accurate information on healthy natural living fall for the propaganda against antimicrobial silver being dished out by the radical, anti-silver environmentalists.
But it’s happened more times in the past than I care to remember. And I believe that’s largely because we all want to be environmentally conscientious. But when the environmentalists are flat-out lying about a subject like antimicrobial silver, you have to set aside personal loyalties to cherished concepts, and look instead at the raw facts.
And hopefully, if you set the facts out nice and straight, so people can see them, then the people being taken in by the rank sensationalism against antimicrobial silver will see the error of their ways and turn a new page. Here’s one such case I’m hoping the best for…
Hi, Steve Barwick here, for The Silver Edge…
I’ve had a number of readers ask me what I thought of an article titled “Invisible Toxins in Food Can Damage Your Health,” written by a gentleman named Jonathan Landsman, which was published on the usually reliable NaturalHealth365.com website.
Mr. Landsman, blamed “silver nanoparticles” for just about all of the world’s ills. So I think most readers who have been with me for any length of time already know how I feel about that topic.
Nevertheless, I’ve read Mr. Landsman’s article, and for the sake of those who might be new to the “silver wars,” I’m happy to dissect it for you here, at least in part, if you’re interested in hearing my viewpoint on the matter.
If the Foundation is Shaky…
The very first thing we see in Mr. Landsman’s article is this scary statement:
So what’s the problem with this statement? There’s not a word of truth in it. That’s what. Nobody’s putting silver in the food supply. And nobody’s putting silver in your pharmaceutical medication.
Now, to be fair to Mr. Landsman, a small handful of researchers have indeed done clinical research on adding silver nanoparticles to prescription antibiotic drugs.
And to answer Mr. Landsman’s second question above, the reason why these researchers would even consider doing such a thing is that the preliminary results have clearly demonstrated that adding silver to the antibiotics increased their effectiveness against pathogenic microorganisms by as much as 1,000x.
In other words, adding silver to prescription antibiotic drugs just might help solve the growing crisis of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. That’s because silver kills microbes in such a manner that very few of them can become resistant to it.
Here’s how it works:
Whereas prescription antibiotic drugs merely poison the microbes (which they can mutate to avoid), silver actually bursts the microbes outer membrane, destroys its ability to create energy (in essence, shutting down its metabolism) and then finally attaches to its DNA which prevents it from replicating.
But this relatively new research is only in the preliminary stage, and adding silver to prescription medications has, to my knowledge, never been approved by the Food & Drug Administration. So the pharmaceutical industry is not piling silver into our medications as Mr. Landsman so strongly insists.
Finally (and I’m still only talking about Mr. Landsman’s very first paragraph, here), his shrill claim that nanosilver is being “added to our food supply” is equally erroneous.
I’ve already destroyed the idea that food producers are adding silver to foods, in my previous article “Evil Silver Nanoparticles Invading Your Fruits and Veggies?”
Once again, it’s true that some researchers have done preliminary research into the use of nanosilver on food crops as a means of eradicating pathogens that cause billions of dollars worth of crop loss every year, and cause tens of thousands of cases of food poisoning as well.
Researchers also want to know whether or not silver can be used as a safe, non-toxic natural substitute for the toxic synthetic chemicals used by farmers today to eradicate pathogens before they can destroy crop growth.
But just as adding silver to prescription antibiotic medications is only in the preliminary research stage and has never been approved, so the use of nanosilver on food crops is only in the preliminary research stage as well. And it, too, has never been approved by the regulatory authorities. There’s still a lot more research to do.
Interestingly, this preliminary research into using nanosilver on food crops to help stop pathogen growth has shown some very promising results, including reduced fungal loads on crop plants, and larger, healthier crops.
You can read more about this research in my previous article, “Gardeners: Colloidal Silver Kills Plant Fungus, Produces Larger and Healthier Crops.”
So there’s no nanosilver whatsoever being “added to our food supply (and medications) at an alarming rate” as Mr. Landsman asserts. Indeed, the only thing “alarming” about this topic is Mr. Landsman’s sensationalistic rhetoric.
Listen: Whenever the foundation is shaky, you have to suspect the rest of the house will be shaky too. Mr. Landsman’s house of erroneous information on nanosilver is extremely shaky, indeed.
Lions, and Tigers
and Bears (Oh, My!)…
Landsman goes on to say “Consuming silver nanoparticles is a bad idea…scientific research warns us that uptake of these tiny particles can cause cellular damage, kidney disorders, stomach upset, headaches, fatigue and skin irritation.”
The interesting thing, so far, is that not a single one of Mr. Landsman’s claims are backed up with even a smidgeon of reliable clinical documentation.
Instead of producing clinical research to back up his claims, Landsman instead provides links to equally sensationalist articles spouting equally spurious “facts” about nanosilver.
So what do the real experts say about silver intake?
As stated in a position paper on silver by the Dartmouth University Toxic Metals Research Program:
"Trace amounts of silver are in the bodies of all humans and animals. We normally take in between 70 and 88 micrograms of silver a day, half of that amount from our diet.
Humans have evolved with efficient methods of dealing with that intake, however. Over 99 percent is readily excreted from the body.
Is silver harmful to humans?
Unlike other metals such as lead and mercury, silver is not toxic to humans and is not known to cause cancer, reproductive or neurological damage, or other chronic adverse effects."
And as Britain's foremost expert on silver, researcher Alan Lansdown (not to be confused with our intrepid Mr. Landsman), has pointed out on many occasions, the idea that silver intake results in cumulative toxicity in the human body, or any form of harm to cells or tissues, is simply and decidedly untrue. He states:
“…silver is actively metabolized in the human body and a large part eliminated eventually via the liver, urine and hair...
…there is very little substantive evidence that silver acts either as a cumulative poison in the human body like lead and mercury, or that it reaches toxic levels in any tissue...”
-- “Silver in Healthcare: Its Antimicrobial Efficacy and Safety in Use,” by Alan B. G. Lansdown, pg. 45, 59, 60
Truly, Mr. Landsman’s claims are little more than rank sensationalism, mostly copied from the websites of anti-silver environmentalists who still to this day claim that nanosilver is causing global warming and “killing the planet.”
Problem is, nanosilver has been on this planet a whole lot longer than the human race. And humans are mere pikers when it comes to producing nanosilver.
The seas, for example, naturally contain tons upon tons upon tons of trace silver (and these same seas thrive with every form of life you can imagine in spite of all of that “evil” silver). And the earth’s surface naturally contains tons more trace silver.
Indeed, the stuff is absolutely ubiquitous throughout the earth. That’s because, as research scientists have recently discovered, “Mother Earth” makes her own nanosilver, without any help at all from we mere humans.
Where Does He Get His Facts?
So where does Mr. Landsman get all of his “facts”?
It appears to me that 99% of Landsman’s material on nanosilver is taken right out of the playbook of extremist, neo-Luddite anti-silver environmentalists who have been shrieking for years now that silver is “destroying the environment” in spite of the fact that silver comes from the environment in the first place, and pervades the environment naturally.
I’ve written many times in the past about the deceitful and sensationalistic ways the anti-silver environmentalists try to trash all forms of antimicrobial silver (while taking millions of dollars per year in donations from charitable foundations set up by Big Pharma).
The environmentalists claim, for example, that there are studies demonstrating that silver harms animals. And Landsman parrots that claim in his article, saying “Animals treated with silver nanoparticles exhibited reduced cognitive/motor functions and altered cellular structures in the brain.”
But where’s the clinical documentation for this very serious charge?
Once again, the only documentation provided are links to other sensationalistic articles written by silver-bashing environmentalists. Clinical studies are not provided, because if they were, we’d be able to read them and see the glaring faults contained in them.
You see, there simply isn’t any credible clinical documentation for these claims. On the contrary, every decent animal study I’ve ever seen on nanosilver has demonstrated no harm whatsoever to the animals even at extremely large dosages.
here’s an article about a 2012 clinical study which
showed no harm whatsoever to animals, even when they were exposed to well
above-moderate doses of nanosilver.
Even when the Environmental Protection Agency studied silver’s effects on pregnant rats that were being tube-fed a caustic form of silver known as silver acetate, they couldn’t find any lasting harm to the animals.
“In a developmental toxicity study of pregnant rats conducted in 2002 by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), silver acetate was administered by gavage [tube-feeding – ED] on days 6-19 of gestation.
No developmental effects were reported at doses up to 100 mg/kg…
…More importantly, the results from this study did not demonstrate an increased susceptibility of offspring, nor did it demonstrate systemic toxicity.”
-- Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
So, silver didn’t appear to harm the development of baby rats, even though it was being tube-fed directly into the mother rats for 13 days during gestation.
A Little Bit Fruity?
As you’ll see when you read my article at the above link, the entire “study” on alleged nanosilver in fruit was a red herring. No nanosilver was ever found in commercially sold fruit.
Instead, the researchers purchased some fruit and then soaked it in nanosilver themselves. Afterwards, they used a new technique to detect the presence of the silver in the fruit.
The radical, anti-silver environmentalists then seized upon this study and wrote numerous articles about it, claiming the study showed that our fruits and veggies are teaming with nanosilver that’s being added by farmers. But the study showed no such thing.
The way the study was interpreted and touted by dozens of environmentalist writers was a sensationalistic “sky-is-falling” fabrication from start to finish, designed by said environmentalists to smear nanosilver as a “toxin” that’s “invading our fruits and vegetables,” when there’s absolutely no evidence of any such thing, anywhere.
Indeed, the entire “nanosilver in your fruits and veggies” story was, in my opinion, knowingly concocted and spread by anti-silver environmentalists who knew in advance that not a word they were saying was true.
Landsman goes on to claim that “Many food packing materials incorporate silver nanoparticles to prolong the shelf life of packaged foods. The nano material has been known to transfer to the food – inside the package.”
Please name even one of these “food packing materials” that incorporates silver nanoparticles into its makeup. I’d be particularly interested to know of any that are in use commercially, right now, and that the average person would come into contact with through food purchased through a normal retail food outlet.
Can’t name any? Neither can I. That’s because, under pressure from the radical anti-silver environmental groups who repeatedly sue the EPA every time they try to approve a consumer product containing antimicrobial nanosilver, the vast majority of these products have long ago been pulled from the market. So this ominous “threat” is virtually non-existent.
But I’ll tell you something: If I could actually find any of these “food packaging materials” that supposedly have nanosilver incorporated into their makeup, I’d buy them and use them.
Why? Because food poisoning – which sickens 48 million people per year in the U.S., and kills thousands of them – is a far more insidious threat to human health than nanosilver could ever be.
Worse yet, recent studies have demonstrated that over 50% of all store-bought meats are now contaminated with potentially deadly MRSA bacteria. While MRSA does not cause food poisoning, it does infect some 39,000 people in the U.S. every year, and has a death rate higher than AIDS.
Thankfully, silver is extremely effective against MRSA.
Indeed, as I’ve discussed repeatedly in the past (see “In Defense of Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles: It’s Time to Kick Some Environmentalist Butt”) nanosilver is the answer to the threat of bacterially contaminated meats. Not the problem.
Do Silver Nanoparticles Harm Cells?
As I’ve noted, very few of Landsman’s claims, such as the claim that silver nanoparticles “have devastating effects on cell survival” have any documentation whatsoever.
In reality, study after study demonstrates that silver protects human cells.
For example, see my previous article, “NanoSilver Prevents Blood Clots; Doesn't Harm Cells,” about a recent study demonstrating that nanosilver not only prevents blood clots, but causes no harm to human cells whatsoever.
And see “Another New Study Demonstrates the Protective Effects of Silver on Human Cells,” in which researchers document the rather astonishing cell-protective effects of silver against alcohol poisoning.
Also, see this older clinical study, “Effects of Electrically Generated Silver Ions on Human Cells and Wound Healing,” in which the researchers demonstrate how tiny, electrically generated silver particles stimulate cells to begin the healing process in serious wounds and open infections.
And finally, see this clinical study, “Topical Delivery of Silver Nanoparticles Promotes Wound Healing,” in which researchers document how silver nanoparticles promote wound healing on the cellular level and protect cells from the damage that would normally be caused by excessive cytokine expression in wounds.
So where do the environmentalists get this crap when they claim silver harms cells?
They get it from studies conducted by other radical, anti-silver environmentalists who take lab-grown human cells and put them in a test tube, and then soak them in such high concentrations of nanosilver as to guarantee negative results.
For an example of how blatantly this is done, see the very misleading study I dissect in my previous article, “Flawed Study Says Colloidal Silver Toxic to Human Cells.”
Naturally, the study authors could have taken the same human cells and soaked them in high concentrations of orange juice, or coffee, or vinegar, or even distilled water and gotten the same exact negative results.
That’s because any time you take human cells out of their biological environment, put them in a test tube and soak them in overly-high concentrations of a substance for dozens of hours, you’re going to be able to document harm to those cells. It’s inevitable.
But that’s the kind of trickery and chicanery the anti-silver environmentalists resort to. They can’t demonstrate that commercial products containing silver have ever harmed anyone’s cells, in the past 120 years since nanosilver was first produced by humans. So they engineer a study and rig it to demonstrate harm.
If you read the above-linked article, you’ll be shocked to see what lengths these guys go to in order to smear antimicrobial silver.
One More Myth Bites the Dust
Finally, Mr. Landsman states that “Observations, in laboratory animals, have shown that the uptake of these particles – in the digestive tract – can change the terrain. The digestive tract harbors beneficial bacteria along with pathogenic bacteria. Silver nanoparticles can wipe out the ‘good bacteria’ along with toxic ones.”
Yes, it’s true. Silver is indeed unable to distinguish between good digestive bacteria and pathogenic bacteria. As I’ve pointed out here and here, silver is an equal opportunity antimicrobial substance. And therefore excessive use of silver should be eschewed, if you want to protect your body’s beneficial digestive micro-flora.
However, as I pointed out last week in my article “Debunking ‘Why I Never Consume Colloidal Silver’,” the exact same thing can be said about virtually all natural antimicrobial substances – including many that have been recommended repeatedly on Mike Adam’s NaturalNews.com (one of my favorite websites), which Mr. Landsman apparently works with.
In other words, natural antimicrobials like garlic, grapefruit seed extract, oregano oil, cayenne pepper and many others ALL have one thing in common: like colloidal silver, they too cannot distinguish between our body’s beneficial digestive bacteria and infection-causing pathogens.
Yet these natural substances are all highly touted by natural health gurus like Mr. Landsman. And one of the reasons they’re so highly touted is because they pose far less risk to the body’s beneficial microbes than prescription antibiotic drugs.
So the same is just as true for silver as it is for garlic, oregano oil, or any other natural antimicrobial. As I point out in the article at the above link, very little ingested silver ever makes it into the large and small intestines where the vast majority of one’s three and a half to seven pounds worth of beneficial microflora reside.
That’s because mineral silver – just like garlic, grapefruit seed extract, oregano oil, cayenne pepper and other natural antimicrobial substances – is treated by the body as nutrition, whereas antibiotic drugs are not.
And even when some mineral silver does make it into the intestinal tract, of which the average human adult has some 28 feet worth with virtually every square centimeter absolutely teaming with billions of beneficial digestive microbes, there’s very little chance of it harming enough of the good bacteria to put a significant dent in the population, unless ungodly, egregiously high levels of silver have been consumed.
The human digestive tract actually contains more microbes than the human body has cells. Think about that for a moment. Yes, in terms of individual microbes, versus individual cells, we’re actually more microbe than “human” in makeup.
So while overuse of prescription antibiotic drugs – which acts as a whole-body “poison” to microbes, good and bad alike -- may well be able to wipe out large portions of our body’s beneficial micro-flora, natural mineral antimicrobial substances like silver and natural plant-based antimicrobial substances like garlic, oregano oil, etc., have never been known to do so when used within normal bounds.
Again, this goes for all natural antimicrobial substances. They all have the potential to kill some of our body’s beneficial microbes when used. But they’re all far safer to use than prescription antibiotic drugs, in that regard, as long as they’re used within common-sense boundaries.
You have to balance the risks versus the rewards. And with natural antimicrobials – including mineral silver – the risks are relatively low and the rewards relatively high, compared to the toxic effects of prescription antibiotic drugs.
So to single out silver as some kind of dire threat to our body’s populations of beneficial digestive microbes is at best, deceptive, and at the very least disingenuous, in my view.
No Big Surprise
None of the tirades against silver which you’ve seen over the past few years should surprise you. Silver has long been in the cross hairs of Big Pharma. They’ve long wanted to patent it, and monopolize its use for themselves, while restricting the public’s access to its antimicrobial properties.
So they use their minions in the environmentalist movement (who take millions of dollars in contributions from Big Pharma charitable foundations) to ruthlessly propagandize against silver, so the average Joe won’t have access to it in the form of antimicrobial consumer products.
In conclusion, it’s very sad to see that Mr. Landsman has fallen for this environmentalist clap-trap, when it’s so easily debunked.
Since he’s an ardent proponent of natural healthy living, and since he appears to be associated with one of my heroes, Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com, I hope he’ll do some additional research (some of the links in this article would be good places to start) and eventually see the light.
I’d like to point out that I do agree – wholeheartedly, in fact – with Mr. Landsman’s advice that where food is involved, we should all buy locally grown foods whenever possible, and that organic meats and produce are best, because they’re least likely to be treated with toxins, drugs, and other undesirable chemicals. On that topic, Mr. Landsman and myself are of the same heart and mind.
If you’re interested in learning more about how the radical anti-silver environmentalists are destroying the market for antimicrobial silver in this country, and putting millions of people at risk for disease and infection as a result, see my article on that topic at this link.
And if you’d like to learn more about how the radical anti-silver environmentalists are running a global propaganda campaign to smear silver as an “environmental toxin” and have antimicrobial silver banned from all consumer usage, see my article “The Global Environmental Campaign to Ban Antimicrobial Silver.”
Meanwhile, I’ll be back next week with another great article on the astonishing, infection-fighting qualities of colloidal silver….
Yours for the safe, sane and responsible use of colloidal silver,
Important Note and Disclaimer: The contents of this Ezine have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and reliability thereof. The author, Steve Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience writing professionally about natural health topics. He is not a doctor. Therefore, nothing stated in this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical advice. Nothing reported herein is intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The author is simply reporting in journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage. Therefore, the information and data presented should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with caution. Readers should verify for themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas, conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein. All important health care decisions should be made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and experienced health care professional. Readers are solely responsible for their choices. The author and publisher disclaim responsibility and/or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a result of the use or application of any information included in this Ezine.
Copyright 2014 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ 85380-1239 | All rights reserved.