On Monday, December 19th a Complaint with request for a Temporary Restraining Order was presented to Hon. Ann McCormick, a Superior Court Judge in New Brunswick, New Jersey, on behalf of General Stubblebine, President of the Natural Solutions Foundation, by his counsel, Neil Grossman, Esq., in the case of Laibow and Stubblebine vs JFK – Docket No. C-213-16 . The TRO, which has been termed a significant step for health freedom, was signed 22 December 2016 by Judge McCormick. .
Here is a scan of the relevant parts of the Temporary Restraining Order:
. . The facts in the case, as we understand them, are as follows: . 1. General Bert was admitted to JFK Medical Center ER on September 1, 2016 by our colleague Dr. Richard Menashe, D.O., a well-known, holistically-oriented physician with admitting privileges there. . 2. General Bert’s condition was quite grave. You can read the Medical Bulletins that we have published periodically since he was admitted here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/general-bert-medical-bulletin/ . 3. After two weeks in ICU and CCU, with only minimal nutrition (Dr. Rima used spray nutrients, as General Bert could not swallow) a feeding tube was installed. . 4. For about 70 days, with his physician’s permission, Dr. Rima mixed various organic foods and nutrients together and added the nutrient mix to the feeding tube, four times a day. . This was done in conformity with the Orphan Drug Law, allowing: .
“… food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation….” Section 5(b) of the Orphan Drug Act of 2005 (21 U.S.C. 360ee (b) (3)) *
. 5. On November 30th, citing a Hospital Policy adopted in 2001 that allows only “FDA approved medications” the nutrient feeding was stopped (initially they said “temporarily”). Neither General Bert nor Dr. Rima, his health proxy, gave Informed Consent for the stopping of nutritional therapy.
General Bert has survived since then on hospital “feed” and the residual nutrition from the 70 days of Dr. Rima’s therapy, plus a return to spraying. . 6. It became clear that his overall condition was suffering from the lack of nutritional supplementation, and, after days of delays by the Hospital, which put repeated roadblocks in the way of restoring the nutrition, no choice was left but to go to Court. . What type of roadblocks? First, they asserted their Hospital Policy that was written before the Orphan Drug Act and its important clause about Medical Foods, which we believe overrides State Medical Board restrictions on the use of nutrition in healing. They claimed that only “FDA-approved medications” could be used. FDA has no power to “approve” Dietary Supplements, which are “grandfathered” under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) and are not medications.
Then they said we had to provide sealed bottles of the vitamins. Then they wanted Certificates of Analysis, which we also provided. Then they said they still could not allow the nutrition anyway! . 7. After receiving our papers and hearing the arguments put forth by our Counsel, the Judge has indicated that General Bert must be permitted to receive the nutrition, at least until a full hearing which could occur in about a month. . Legal support for Informed Consent is yet another way that General Bert continues to stand strong for your Health Freedom! We need your help to support this litigation. . Please show your appreciation here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/action/donate/ . Yours for health and freedom, . Ralph Fucetola JD Natural Solutions Trustee
PS – Here is the link to General Bert’s Medical Bulletins: http://drrimatruthreports.com/general-bert-medical-bulletin/ .
BAN GMOs! Most plants are genetically modified to withstand (and thus encourage) high levels of dangerous agricultural chemicals like glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup(c). The chemicals are toxic and the GMOs themselves are not tested for safety before FDA approves them, are forbidden to be labeled as GMO by the FDA and are associated with cancer, infertility, autoimmune diseases, fetal death and permanent changes to DNA in very cell of people who eat GMOs! More than 90% of the US food supply is either GMO or contains ingredients made from DNA. It’s time to end “FRANKEN-FOODS”! Click here, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2049, to demand a total ban on GMOs and a scientific effort to find out how bad the genetic damage has been and how to correct it while there is still time.
Valley of the Moon™ Eco Demonstration Project, www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org If clean, unadulterated food is important to you, you’ll want to know about, support, and perhaps participate in the Valley of the Moon Eco Demonstration Project in the beautiful, bountiful, temperate Highlands of Panama!
VALLEY OF THE MOON(TM) ECO DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
VOLCAN, CHIRIQUI, PANAMA
Contact me, Dr. Rima, at email@example.com with “VOTM” as the subject line if you are interested in knowing more and participating in the VOTM project or becoming a VOTM Angel. You should also know that VotM can accept participation through legal offshore IRA/401 involvement. This makes a good deal of sense now that the US Government is within striking distance of your retirement funds to turn them into annuities “guaranteed” by the “strength” of the US Treasury!. You can also contact Trustee and Counsel Ralph Fuectola, JD, at ralph,firstname.lastname@example.org or on Skype at “vitaminlawyer”.
GMO CASE DECIDED FOR CONSUMERS, ORGANIC FARMERS. MONSANTO SAYS NO, THEY WON. THE TRUTH IS THAT PUSH BACK WORKS, AND WORKS AND WORKS BECAUSE YOU, THE HEALTH FREEDOM NET ROOTS, WORK AND WORK AND WORK!
The US Supreme Court gave us a tremendous win by making it clear, as the article below shows, that consumers – that’s us – have the right to sue corporations and government agencies to stop poor regulations from going into effect.
That’s exactly what the Natural Solutions Foundation is doing in our Stop the Shot case against the FDA and in our Ear Candling case against the same corrupt, multinational-corporation-controlled FDA.
In the first case, we are now preparing to file for the third time. Each of the first two times that we filed this case which says that US law clearly and unambiguously says that vaccines must be tested and shown to be BOTH safe and effective before they can be released to the public. No flu vaccine has passed those two tests. For that matter, no vaccine has passed those tests.
But the FDA continues to support the use of more, and more toxic, vaccines for children and adults in the absence of a single shred of evidence that vaccines work or are safe.
Each time we filed the Stop the Shot case, the standing of the plaintiffs (us) was undermined when the agency which was meancing our defendants with job loss or worse backed off on the eve of the trial going forward. Both times the judge said, “Well, you’ve won!” and sent us out of the Court House to go celebrate. But that was not the win we were looking for. We don’t just want the corrupt Department of Health Commissioner in New York State and the Governor to back down, we want all influenza vaccine banned. The next time, it was the mandate for all children under 5 in New Jersey to be vaccinated before they could be enrolled in a state-licensed day care center.
That is not what we are looking for although we congratulate the parents of young New Jersey children on having that mandate lifted.
We want a full and total ban on vaccines which have not been tested to prove their safety OR their effectiveness, as required by US law. That means that ALL influenza vaccines (and all other vaccines, but our standing is for influenza vaccine complaints right now) are, in fact, illegal, untested drugs in the US! That includes the absurd and dangerous H1N1 vaccines.
Yesterday, the FDA called the Natural Solutions Foundation asking us to withdraw our Citizens Petition about the dangers and illegality of the H1N1 vaccines! Why? Well, perhaps because about 5 months ago, just after a health emergency had been declared, they told us they would respond to us within 6 months since they were too busy to respond to our emergency petition [sic!] and the 6 months is almost up. Now they have to deal with us and they would clearly rather not. It is a great time for your to sign that Citizens Petition here: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27791.
So the FDA appears to be asking us NOT to go forward with our campaign to get dangerous vaccines off the market and out of our bodies. That seems to us the very best indication that we are definitely on the right track.
What does that have to do with GMOs? Everything. First, the principle of the Uber-Cartel. The companies which make genetically modified organisms (GMOs) do so to make sure that they tolerate and/or require very high levels of the highly profitable and enormously toxic herbicides and pesticides which destroy the balance of nature and create sick plants and super weeds and pests, requiring yet more of the toxic chemicals. In fact, when GMO crops are planted, the average use of toxic agrochemicals increases by 400% or more.
Of course, these toxin chemicals, such as the new generation of Monsanto’s Roundup(c), containing 70% Agent Orange [dioxin] get into your body, the environment and, tragically, the unprotected bodies of the unsuspecting farm workers whose cancers, infertility, fetal and infant death mimic those of the general population which eats these foods. Codex Alimentarious, the International Food Code, habitually sets permissible limits for foods so high that any limitation is meaningless.
When eaten, these toxic, genetically altered foods literally change the DNA of every cell of the eater – you – and any children that are in the womb or that come after you will also have permanently altered DNA. And so will the plants and animals whose DNA is contaminated by the contaminated DNA of these dangerous foods.
Cancer, permanent genetic alteration, decreased immune function, infertility, sterility, fetal and infant death, auto immune disease, gut, kidney and other organ damage are the rule in every study NOT sponsored by industry which looks at GMO ingestion. But the FDA and USDA do not, and, in fact, MAY not examine the safety or dangers of these patented organisms.
More than 90% of US food is now either genetically modified or contains ingredients derived from GMOs or both.
When you get sick, the very same companies that made money from the sale of the GMOs which required increasing amounts of toxic chemicals to grow AND manufactured and marketed the toxic chemicals are the companies that make the drugs that you are supposed to take when you get sick from their GMOs and toxic chemicals.
The model is circular. The effect is disastrous. That cycle of profit and death is what I call the “Uber-Cartel”.
We all understand that GMOs are untested and that they hide within our food supply since they MAY NOT be labeled, thanks to the every industry-friendly, corrupt and dangerous FDA. We all also understand that the manufacturer of 95% of the genetically modified seed and animal stock in the world, Monsanto, is as ruthless as any corporation in the world in contaminating farmers’ fields, controlling markets regardless of the tragic consequences of such control (e.g., starvation, farmers being driven off their land, increased cancer, infertility, deaths, starvation, crop failure, etc.).
Alfalfa is the 4th largest crop grown in the US after corn (almost entirely GMO in the US), soy (nearly all GMO) and wheat (emerging as a GMO crop now that Japan and other countries have dropped their ban on US wheat if GMO varieties were developed). Fed to cows, organic alfalfa is essential or organic dairy and beef production. It is also impossible to produce organic alfalfa if GMO alfalfa is grown anywhere in the area because of short and long distance contamination.
The USDA approved alfalfa for general planting and use with the usual lack of caution or sense. But this time, when they did so in the absence of the required Environmental Impact Statement, the Center for Food Safety sued. A lower court found that the approval of Roundup Ready(C) alfalfa seeds in the absence of the necessary studies was legal and Monsanto announced victory. But push back is a funny thing: dedicated people and groups are willing to fight the long fight, slog the long slog, to make sure that the right thing is done, that lawful outcomes are the result. The District Court ruled that the planing could not go forward and the case was appealed.
The Supreme Court ruled recently on the case and both Monsanto and the Center for Food Safety declared victory, Monsanto because the total ban on planing GMO alfalfa was reversed and the Center for Food Safety because the Supreme Court did not disagree that the USDA had mistakenly approved GMO alfalfa prematurely AND, even ore importantly, because the Supreme Court, for the first time, affirmed the concept that has also now ruled for the very first time ‘that “environmental harm” includes economic effects such as reduced agricultural yield or loss of market due to genetic contamination, as well as the concept of what biologists refer to as “gene flow” (in practice, the idea that genetically engineered material may get into conventional plants through cross-pollination). The Supreme Court now accepts that this phenomenon in and of itself is harmful and illegal under current environment protections.’
As Michael Hansen of Consumer’s Union says, “That’s a huge win for our side … That’s gigantic!” Future lawsuits can now confidently use the gene-flow argument against approval and use of genetically engineered crops.
So although Monsanto is focusing on the reversal of the total ban of GMO alfalfa, we, the People of the PushBack, see it differently. We see that litigation is essential to this health freedom process we are engaged in and that it can be a very powerful strategy.
That is why our Ear Candle suit, to prevent the FDA from declaring any and everything they do not like as an unapproved medical drug or device, whether it is or not, and demanding that it be removed from the market immediately, and our Stop the Shot case, to prevent illegal, untested, unnecessary, unsafe and uninsurable influenza vaccines from being deployed are so important.
Supreme Court’s ruling on Monsanto’s GE alfalfa: Who won?
by Tom Laskawy
June 21, 2010
The sustainable agriculture world is abuzz today with news of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding an earlier lawsuit, brought by alfalfa farmers, that sought to stop any planting of Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready alfalfa seed. While the press coverage heralds the ruling as a decisive victory for Monsanto, a close reading shows that, in fact, it’s a fairly significant win for opponents of biotech crops.
Hay dudes, not so fast
The background: As the fourth most-planted U.S. crop behind corn, soybeans, and wheat, alfalfa is worth $9 billion a year — the dairy industry is the biggest consumer — with annual seed sales valued at $63 million, according to a USDA study. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa seed has been genetically engineered to be tolerant of glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.
Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco found that the USDA had illegally approved Roundup Ready alfalfa for planting — which the agency refers to as “deregulating” — by allowing Monsanto to sell and farmers to plant the seeds without the USDA completing a required full Environmental Impact Statement. (A preliminary one was under way.)
In response to a lawsuit filed by GMO-opposed alfalfa farmers along with the Center for Food Safety on behalf of consumers, the District Court halted all planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa until the USDA completes the EIS, which could take years. It also issued two injunctions: one that prevented the USDA from performing a so-called “partial deregulation” of Roundup Ready alfalfa, i.e. allowing restricted and otherwise limited planting, while it prepared the final environmental statement; the other stopping farmers from planting any Roundup Ready alfalfa starting with the 2010 crop year. (For a deeper look into the lead-up to the case, read Matt Jenkins’ excellent 2007 feature “Brave New Hay” from High Country News.)
Today, in a 7-1 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court reversed both District Court injunctions, saying that the Court had overreached itself procedurally in halting the plantings. (Both Justices Steven Breyer and Clarence Thomas had conflicts of interest in the case — Breyer’s brother was the District Court judge on the case, while Thomas was corporate counsel for Monsanto earlier in his career, but only Breyer saw fit to recuse himself.)
Despite the news reports claiming victory for Monsanto, the Supreme Court did not overturn the central tenet of the case: that the USDA prematurely approved Roundup Ready alfalfa. The District Court, in effect, made it once again illegal to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa — and the Supreme Court endorsed that ruling. While the Justices did declare that the USDA, if it wants to, has the right to give the seed a preliminary approval (i.e. for limited, restricted planting), the Supreme Court decision does not by itself give Roundup Ready alfalfa the green light.
And it’s important to note that the USDA has not yet formally announced any intention to re-authorize the restricted plantings, which would come in the form of a rule for “partial deregulation” of Roundup Ready alfalfa. In fact, the agency and Monsanto had preciously submitted such a plan to the District Court in hopes that it would be incorporated into the final ruling, and instead, they received an injunction.
To some, that move appeared to be an attempt at an end run around the official rulemaking process. It’s not clear if the USDA will move forward with anything other than the “final” environmental review.
[Update:] The USDA office that oversees biotech crops, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), just released a brief statement via email in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling. In it, the agency leaves the door open to some sort of preliminary approval for the alfalfa seed, without indicating its intention one way or the other: “APHIS is carefully reviewing the Supreme Court ruling before making decisions about its next regulatory actions related to the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa.” It also announced its intention to complete the full environmental impact statement “in time for the spring planting of alfalfa crops in 2011.” That start date presumes they get through the process without any more lawsuits or injunctions — not a safe bet, at all.
No mo’ gene flow?
More importantly, the Supreme Court has also now ruled for the very first time that “environmental harm” includes economic effects such as reduced agricultural yield or loss of market due to genetic contamination, as well as the concept of what biologists refer to as “gene flow” (in practice, the idea that genetically engineered material may get into conventional plants through cross-pollination). The Supreme Court now accepts that this phenomenon in and of itself is harmful and illegal under current environment protections.
“That’s a huge win for our side … That’s gigantic!” Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist of Consumers Union, told me. Future lawsuits can now confidently use the gene-flow argument against approval and use of genetically engineered crops.
Others share his glee. The Center for Food Safety called the ruling “a victory for the Center for Food Safety and the farmers and consumers it represents.”
For its part, Monsanto is spinning the ruling positively. In a statement posted on its website, the company said: “This is exceptionally good news received in time for the next planting season. Farmers have been waiting to hear this for quite some time. We have Roundup Ready alfalfa seed ready to deliver and await USDA guidance on its release. Our goal is to have everything in place for growers to plant in fall 2010.”
Well, from all appearances Monsanto has this flat wrong. Farmers can’t plant Roundup Ready alfalfa just yet. And even if the USDA tries for that preliminary approval, the Supreme Court made very clear that today’s ruling does not presume that any preliminary approval is (or isn’t) legal.
Indeed, the legal issues at the heart of the ruling aren’t over the rights of corporations or the science behind genetically engineered seed, but about the separation of powers between co-equal branches of government. The Supreme Court today stopped a District Court from telling a federal agency that it couldn’t make regulatory rules. For the judiciary to stop the government from doing its job requires meeting a very rigorous set of standards. After the Supreme Court decided to make this point the crux of its ruling, all the other issues fell by the wayside. Another way of looking at it is that the supposed “overreach” by the District Court was against the USDA, not Monsanto.
The Supreme Court has also made the point very clearly that outside groups have the ability to file lawsuits in order to stop any poorly conceived or improperly executed rule that a federal agency passes. And surprisingly enough, the Court — with its expansion of the definition of “environmental harm” to include things like gene flow — just gave consumer groups a whole new set of legal weapons to wield against the same companies currently crowing over the implications of today’s events.
Barbara Loe Fisher is a tireless advocate of both vaccine truth and choice and the Natural Solutions Foundation nominates her for our Hall of Fame. Barbara continues to examine carefully the vaccine industry, its products and its corruption. Her site, www.NVIC.org, is a mine of information and assistance on vaccine and vaccination issues. She is an ally and a resource of great value.
Barbara’s latest commentary on the corrupt – and corrupting – vaccine industry is a very important read.
In it she points out that vaccine safety and effectiveness have not been demonstrated by the studies published about them even in prestige journals. Those studies are of poor quality and show little that can be relied upon scientifically, but are, none the less, used as the evidence relied upon by vaccine courts to determine whether vaccines have harmed or killed anyone.
The Natural Solutions Foundation has filed a Citizens Petition with the Federal Trade Commission demanding hearings on whether vaccines are safe and/or effective and asking for a ban on any advertising or materials which suggest that they are either safe, effective or both until that fact is established.
And click here (http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=2220) to read the latest news on the “accidental” Baxter International contamination scandal in which live, virulent Avian Flu H5N1 virus was somehow mixed with seasonal flu vaccine shipped to 18 countries. This mixture would allow re-assortment or mutation of the Avian Flu virus which currently is very ineffective in causing human disease. Such alteration of the virus could potentially allow it to become as deadly as the Avian Flu has been predicted to be when it causes the next “inevitable” pandemic. Of course, if it is mixed in with other flu viruses and injected “by accident”, the next pandemic really IS inevitable.
If you take more than a casual look at the way the mass vaccination system in the U.S. works, you see that pharmaceutical companies marketing vaccines have a lot of clout.
It was the pharmaceutical industry that told Congress in 1982 that they were going to leave the nation without vaccines if they didn’t get liability protection but have opposed making it less difficult for vaccine victims to obtain federal compensation in the U.S. Court of Claims under a 1986 law that gave them liability protection.
It is Pharma lobbyists, who bully the FDA into fast tracking vaccines like Gardasil and who sit at the CDC’s policymaking tables urging that new vaccines be recommended for use by all children so they can persuade state legislators to mandate vaccines like influenza vaccine.
How Big Pharma Influences Medical Journals
A recent study published in the British Medical Journal reveals the clout that Big Pharma has in the world of medicine journal publishing, specifically the publishing of scientific articles about vaccines. In a Cochrane Collaboration review and analysis of published influenza vaccine studies found that influenza vaccine studies sponsored by industry are treated more favorably by medical journals even when the studies are of poor quality.
This analysis confirms that drug companies marketing vaccines have a major influence on what gets published and is said about vaccines in medical journals. It is no wonder that there are almost no studies published in the medical literature that call into question vaccine safety.
The preferential treatment of Pharma-funded studies also explains why the risks of an inappropriately fast-tracked vaccine like Gardasil are underplayed in the medical literature and why a physician like Andrew Wakefield, M.D. who dared to publish a study in 1998 in a medical journal (The Lancet) calling for more scientific investigation into the possible link between MMR vaccine and regressive autism, has been mercilessly persecuted for more than a decade, by both Pharma-funded special interest groups, as well as public health officials maintaining close relationships with vaccine manufacturers.
Study Finds No Correlation Between Quality of Study and Publication
This recent review identified and assessed 274 published studies on influenza vaccines for their methodological quality and found no relationship between study quality, publication in prestige journals or their subsequent citation in other articles.
The researchers also found that most influenza vaccine studies are of poor quality but those with conclusions favorable to influenza vaccinations are of significantly lower methodological quality. The single most important factor determining where the studies were published or how much they were cited was sponsorship, with those partially or wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry having higher visibility.
The authors commented: “The study shows that one of the levers for accessing prestige journals is the financial size of your sponsor. Pharma sponsors order many reprints of studies supporting their products, often with in house translations into many languages. They also purchase advertising space in the journal. Many publishers openly advertise these services on their website. It is time journals made a full disclosure of their sources of funding”.
The HPV Vaccine — Just One Example of Inappropriate Influence Endangering Public Health
Last month the National Vaccine Information Center (www.NVIC.org) called on the Obama Administration and Congress to investigate Gardasil vaccine risks. NVIC has long questioned the inappropriate influence of vaccine manufacturers in federal vaccine licensing and policymaking and state vaccine mandates.
In 2006, Merck’s Gardasil vaccine was fast tracked by the FDA at Merck’s request and in 2007 Merck lobbyists mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign to get Gardasil mandated by state legislators for all sixth grade girls, which would have assured the big drug company a predictable market.
The Pharma lobbying effort in 2007 to get all states to mandate Gardasil failed but every other vaccine produced by drug companies and licensed by the FDA in the past quarter century has been mandated. Those new mandates were added to state vaccine laws by legislators and public health officials at the urging of vaccine manufacturer lobbyists and Pharma funded organizations touting vaccine studies published in the medical literature.
Massive Increase in Number of Vaccines Given
In the past three decades, the numbers of doses of government recommended vaccines for children and medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics has tripled to 69 doses of 16 vaccines, with 48 doses of 14 vaccines targeted to children under age six.
Pharma lobbyists have persuaded most states to pass laws requiring two to three dozen doses of most of the 16 government recommended vaccines. Last year New Jersey became the first state to mandate influenza vaccine for children attending daycare and school.
In the past few years, Dr. Jefferson has authored several independent reviews of influenza studies published in the medical literature for the Cochrane Collaboration, which have been published in the British Medical Journal, questioning the quality of published scientific evidence for influenza vaccine effectiveness and safety for the elderly as well as children.
Clearly, if the makers and marketers of vaccines can influence the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence published in the medical literature proving that vaccines are safe and effective — evidence that is used by states to mandate vaccines and by the U.S. Court of Claims to deny compensation to vaccine injured children — then Congress was wrong in 1986 to protect the makers and marketers of vaccines from liability for injuries and deaths caused by those vaccines.
Government Vaccine Recommendations Based on Tainted Evidence
The U.S. Court of Claims vaccine injury compensation awards, and state vaccine mandates are justified on the strength of scientific published in medical journals. It is time for medical journals to disclose all financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. It is time for studies questioning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines to receive a fair hearing in scientific journals rather than editors confining themselves to primarily publishing studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry maintaining that every vaccine is totally safe, effective and necessary.
Kudos to the British Medical Journal for having the integrity to publish Dr. Jefferson’s comprehensive analysis of pharmaceutical money influence on vaccine studies published in the medical literature. Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call for the scientific community, Congress and the public to put an end to the undue influence the pharmaceutical industry has on the science and policy of mass vaccination in the U.S.
Please read and share this important technical report (below the action item and Dr. Rima’s comments) showing that nano silver CANNOT become a threat to aquatic life or soil life. The EPA’s assault is a transparent attempt to shore up the ability of Big Pharma to destroy smaller competitors using government regulatory agencies and “Poison Press” as their weapons.
George J. Maass, Ph.D. (Colloidal Science Laboratories)
Silver is an effective germ fighter and silver nanoparticles are widely recognized
as being especially effective because of their enormously high surface area. Due to the
large number of manufacturers using silver nanoparticles in their products, some concern
has arisen about the effects on the environment when these products are disposed of or
washed. This report will demonstrate that silver nanoparticles do not remain â€œnanosizeâ€
when they come in contact with normal environmental samples, such as soil and water,
but they agglomerate to form much larger, much less biologically effective, silver
particles which are non-toxic, non-ionic and have no history of being harmful to the
environment or aquatic life. Furthermore, there is no possibility that silver nanoparticles
can ever form silver ions, except in the presence of strong oxidizing substances.
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a statement that
they were planning to regulate companies that produce nanoparticles for use as anti-
microbials. This gives rise to the question: why are the dietary supplement and
nanoparticle industries being targeted at this time and what is the rational for new
regulation of an industry which has previously had no reported harmful effects to
humanity or the environment?
The EPA knows that silver nanoparticles are effective as antimicrobials. The
reason given by the EPA for the current interest is that silver nanoparticles, or products
that claim to be silver nanoparticles, are now being produced by a number of
manufacturers, and the EPA is concerned that, when these particles are disposed of, there
might be an appreciable amount of silver nanoparticles suddenly appearing in the
environment. The proposed concern is due to the fact that the silver nanoparticles are so
small that their surface area per unit weight is very large, therefore, for a given weight of
product, the biological effectiveness, which is proportional to surface area, is far beyond
that which would be expected. This much is true and it is part of the reason that silver
nanoparticles are so attractive in biological applications. The EPA is not questioning the
fact that silver nanoparticles are effective in killing harmful bacteria, but that, because of
the high surface area/weight effectiveness parameter, by disposing these particles into
sewers or waterways, might there be harmful effects to the environment by eliminating
the bacteria which are useful in normal waste degradation?
There are several other areas which, as recent articles have indicated, show
misunderstandings about silver and its nanoparticles. At Arizona State University,
Westerhoff and Benn (1) have reported â€œfindingsâ€ which have never been observed
during the last 10 years at Colloidal Science Laboratories (CSL). For example, they claim
that nanosilver particles produce ionic silver when exposed to moisture. This is NOT
true! This is tantamount to saying that silver metal is water soluble. At CSL, various
forms of silver, ranging from solid silver metal to fine silver powder to colloidal
nanoparticles, have been exposed to water for long periods of time with agitation. No
increase in conductivity or silver ion concentration has ever been observed when silver
metal in any form is treated with water. Silver metal requires chemical treatment with
nitric acid or Aqua Regia to make silver ions. Westerhoff and Benn were working with
commercially prepared socks which are prepared by treating the socks with solutions of
silver in questionable form. There may have been some actual colloidal silver in the
treatment solutions, but there most certainly were soluble silver compounds present, and,
once the socks are rinsed, these are the substances which put silver ions back into the
Some people also claim that only silver ions have antimicrobial properties. This
is another misconception. Colloidal silver is a wonderful antimicrobial by itself, which is
a good thing, because silver ions are very reactive with chloride ion to form insoluble,
and biologically inert, silver chloride. This happens in the bloodstream and in nature
wherever halogen anions are present.
As this report will show, the high biological effectiveness of colloidal silver does
not persist in nature because the nanoparticles agglomerate as soon as they come in
contact with the environment, specifically soil and water. Westerhoff and Benn admit that
silver particles â€œclumpâ€ together in the fabric and in the wash water. That is precisely the
point to be considered for environmental safety. How much â€œclumpingâ€ does it take so
that the particles are no longer considered to be â€œnanoâ€, but much larger, therefore
eliminating the continuing effect of high biological activity? These researchers, and
others, are very quick to make the jump from colloidal nanoparticles, in socks for
example, to ionic silver and its toxic effect, especially in zebra fish, and they speak as if
the ions came from the colloidal nanoparticles. It is necessary to be very clear about this.
If the researchers are finding silver ions in the wash water or anywhere else, then the
silver ions were present in the original material. This cannot be stated too strongly.
Unless people have taken to washing their socks in nitric acid, the conversion of
colloidal silver nanoparticles to silver ions is not possible.
The work at hand will examine four different environmental conditions which
change the morphology and stability of silver colloids:
1. The effect of drainage of silver colloids through several soil samples.
2. The effect of interaction of silver colloids with different water
3. The effect of exposure of silver colloids to sunlight.
4. The change in level of silver colloids with regard to biological activity.
At the outset, the first two questions to be addressed were what environmental
samples should be used and to what concentration of colloidal silver should these
samples be exposed. Since this is a first attempt at this kind of information, it was
decided to limit the environmental samples to the following:
1. Sand, taken from the New Jersey shore
2. Dirt, taken from central New Jersey,
3. Dirt, taken from Northern Pennsylvania
4. Water, local tap water from Westampton, NJ
5. Water, sea water, taken from the New Jersey shore
6. Water, taken from a northern Pennsylvania well
The soil samples represent some of the most common types found on the Eastern
Coast of the United States. The sand is essentially an Entisol, which is a type of soil that
is not subject to a great deal of chemical change and is common to areas where deposition
and removal occur at regular intervals. The New Jersey soil is primarily an Ultisol,
which contains clay, quartz, kaolinite and various iron oxides. The Pennsylvania soil is
most likely a mixture of Alfisols and Inceptisols which are clays that are productive for
growing most crops and are common to many areas. (3)
The water samples are Sea water, rich in many salts, NJ tap water, which has been
through routine purification, and Pennsylvania well water, which most likely contains
carbonates and nitrates. Therefore, the selection of samples should be sufficient to
establish the effect of the environment on nanoparticles for this initial study.
Next, in looking at the quantitative amount of colloidal silver to be used, it was
decided that the initial test case should provide information with regard to an
overabundance of nanoparticles being released to the environment, rather than just a trace
amount. If the environment is not substantially altered by the overabundance, surely it
will not be influenced by smaller amounts.
Preliminary work indicated that, at concentrations of up to 6 ppm, and probably
higher, based on the weight of soil samples, no nanoparticles would survive. Therefore, a
more reasonable amount, but still an enormously high concentration for a natural
occurrence, was selected.
Colloidal silver samples at our disposal were of the dietary supplement type and
average at least 20 ppm of silver. Most soil samples require 0.5 to 0.75 their weight in
water to start draining. It was decided that the colloidal silver would be diluted 10 to 1
and then applied to each soil sample. This would make each sample contain a minimum
of 2 ppm of silver nanoparticles, based on the weight of the soil. This would correspond
roughly to dumping 27 liters of 20 ppm colloidal silver onto one ton of dirt. Since most
colloidal silver customers are concerned with teaspoon and tablespoon quantities, it
should be safe to say that this experiment covers something well above the worst case
In each experimental case, the selected sample of colloidal silver was mixed with
the environmental sample and the change in particle size and zeta potential recorded after
a specified time. The instrument used for this work was the Malvern Zetasizer, Model
Nano ZS. Since the samples which were in contact with soil contained very large
macroparticles and rocks, the samples all required vacuum filtration through grade 601
Ahlstrom filter paper to eliminate the particles which are 3 to 4 orders of magnitude
greater than the ones of interest in this study. This filtration has no effect on
For the trials in which the environmental samples were water, the colloidal silver
was diluted 10 to 1 in the water in question.
Table 2 shows that, after only 15 minutes of contact with the soil samples, a
decrease in zeta potential, and the smallest particles have increased to the 3 to 8 nm
range, and they still represent 80 to 90% of the total.
Table 3 indicates that, after a full 7 days of contact with the soil, but kept away
from sunlight, the nanoparticles have increased 3 to 8 times in size.
In Table 4, these results are more dramatic, since the samples were all exposed to
the sunlight for the 7 days, with the increases in size being 7 to 20 fold, and the smallest
particles now representing only 30 to 40 % of the total.
For the data in Table 5, the colloidal silver was left in contact with the
environmental water sample for 21 days in sunlight. As can be seen from the table, the
particle sizes have significantly increased (3 orders of magnitude), with a corresponding
drop in the zeta potential.
In Table 6, the samples were left in contact with the water samples instead of the
soil samples for 7 days in the sunlight. The results of these tests show that each water
sample also decreased the zeta potential and increased the particle size.
PROPERTIES OF COLLOIDAL SILVER USED IN TESTING
nm Zeta Pot., mV Total Ag, ppm Ionic Ag, ppm
1.74 -31.7 21.4 9.60
TABLE 1 – DEIONIZED WATER
Particles, nm Zeta Pot., mV Total Ag, ppm Ionic Ag, ppm
Sand None found -20.2 0.00 0.00
NJ Soil None found -1.5 0.00 0.00
PA Soil None found -31.3 0.00 0.00
TABLE 2 â€“ COLLOIDAL SILVER â€“ 15 MIN. CONTACT â€“ 7 DAYS LATER
Particles, nm Zeta Pot., mV Total Ag, ppm Ionic Ag, ppm
Sand 3.53 -20.6 1.14 0.00
NJ Soil 4.35 -22.2 1.57 0.20
PA Soil 8.30 -21.7 1.05 0.20
In a previous paper by F. Key and G. Maass (4), the nature of a colloid was
described as being a suspension of very small particles which are stabilized by having a
diffuse double layer of solution ions around them. The charge acquired by these particles
gives rise to a potential difference (i.e., mutual repulsion) between them that keeps them
separate and stabilizes the colloid. This potential difference is called the Zeta Potential,
and has been described in countless books on electrolytic effects in solutions. When the
colloid is composed of nanoparticles, the task of preventing the agglomeration is not an
As the previous paper pointed out, if the zeta potential is more negative than
-30 mV, then the mutual repulsion between particles is sufficient to keep them separate
and stabilize the colloid. When the zeta potential is between -15 mV and 0 mV, however,
the particles agglomerate and flocculation or precipitation occurs.
In a 1996 report by the Department of the Interior by M. Elimelech and A. E.
Childress (5), it was pointed out that for world average fresh water rivers, the
concentration of common anions and cations across all normal pH ranges is sufficient to
change the zeta potential range from about -10 mV to +5 mV, making agglomeration of
nanoparticles occur. In sea water, the agglomeration would be even more pronounced.
1. This report has demonstrated that silver nanoparticles will grow to
biologically far less active â€œclumpsâ€ even if one dumps 27 liters of 20
ppm colloidal silver on each ton of soil. In practice, this is an
enormously high number which could not be expected to be reached
2. In spite of the number of manufacturers producing silver nanoparticles
or claiming to be silver nanoparticles, because of the low concentrations
in which these products are sold, the total amount which could be
released in any part of the environment would still be expected to be
3. As shown by all the experiments above, nanoparticles do not last as
nanoparticles in nature for very long, but grow to harmless clumps of
4. Silver nanoparticles are not water soluble, and therefore, silver colloids
will not release silver ions into the environment.
Once agglomeration of the silver nanoparticles occurs, the result is simply
silver metal; a harmless metal which has existed in nature from the beginning of our
planet. Most people would not object to finding silver metal on their property.
1. Environ. Sci. & Technol. 2008, 42, p 7025-7026
2. Tony M. Isaacs, www.americanchronicle.com/articles49272 , May 14, 2008
3. Dept. of Agriculture, Handbook 296, 2006
4. F. Key and G. Maass, â€œIons, Atoms and Charged Particlesâ€, available at
5. Zeta Potential of RO Membranes by M. Elimelech and A. E. Childress, contract