The following article makes the point quite clearly that vaccinations are neither safe nor effective. When challenged to provide substantiation for your position on vaccines, you might find this short and effective piece useful.
The reason that the Natural Solutions Foundation entered a Citizens Petition (which is a legal challenge to the Government’s position) with the Federal Trade Commission calling for a ban on all material and advertising across State Lines which claims or implies that vaccines are safe, effective, or have been scientifically demonstrated to be so is because none of these conditions is true: they are NOT safe, NOT effective and NOT effective. Further, they have been shown to damage and degrade immune functions.
Infant vaccination is even more dangerous than vaccinations in older kids and multiple vaccinations are insanely dangerous. If you want to kill people or damage them permanently while making a fantastic profit, vaccination is the perfect vehicle. Now, just why does someone want to vaccinate that baby?
Please join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s Health Freedom Action eAlert (http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=187) and the No-Forced-Vaccination Yahoo! Forum (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join).
Of course, this type of education and activism is not free and we need your support. Here’s how:
1. Make your tax deductible donation to the Natural Solutions Foundation by clicking here (http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189). Recurring donations of both large and small amounts are especially appreciated.
2. Purchase Valley of the Moon(TM) Coffee (http://www.ValleyoftheMoonCoffee.org). It is shade grown, GMO free, pesticide free, herbicide free, fungicide free and brings you the chance to help bring chemical free coffee to the people of Latin America while you wake up to health freedom. For each donation of $25 per 1/2 lb bag (and coffee of this quality sells for $26.00 per lb. IN PANAMA) we will thank you with a $20 tax deduction AND a 1/2 lb of the best coffee you have ever tasted.
3. Support your health, the wellness industry and the Natural Solutions Foundation at the same time when you visit www.Organics4U.org, our all-organic health and wellness store. Not only can you get organic supplements and health products there, every purchase supports the Natural Solutions Foundation AND most products entitle you to a 40% tax deduction on your purchase
4. Visit (or become one of) the merchants who offer you their products and services through the Natural Solutions Foundation MarketPlace, www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org.
Thanks for your support.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
Why Would Anybody Have Their New-Born Baby or Child Vaccinated?
By Dr. Aisha Hamdan
“Immunizations the best thing to protect your child from a variety of diseases.”
You hear this from your doctor from the media, from the brochures in the clinic, from your friends. But, did you ever stop to think twice about what it all means?
Did you ever look deeper into the issue and the other side of the story?
Well let’s read on…..
Your child is just born and one of the first things you do is call the clinic to schedule an appointment for your first “well-baby” visit. During the visit, after about 1 or 2 months, you can expect your baby to be weighed, measured, and put through excruciating pain from several shots in the leg. Your baby has just received his first immunization (or vaccination) shots and you allow it to happen without even questioning. It is just assumed that your pediatrician has your best interests in mind and that immunizations are the best thing to protect your child from a variety of diseases. You hear this from your doctor, from the media, from the brochures in the clinic, from your friends. You figure that the pain your baby has just gone through is worth the protection that he receives.
But, did you ever stop to think twice about what it all means? Did you ever look deeper into the issue and read the other side of the story? (The one that is not provided by your doctor). Did you know, for example, that immunizations may cause serious side effects in children, even as serious as death? Did you know that immunizations actually weaken the immune system and make it work less effectively and efficiently? Were you aware that immunizations contain harmful chemicals that are not indigenous to the body? Did you know that your child might still contract a disease even if he or she has been immunized against?
If you have a new baby, a young child or are considering having children in the future, these are concerns that you want to investigate and learn more about. Many parents have, and they have decided NOT to immunise their children. Let us look into this matter more closely and also consider it form an Islamic perspective. The health and well being of your child may be at stake.
Myths and Realities
Myth 1. “Vaccines are effective at protecting people from diseases”
Reality: Many studies in the medical literature have documented vaccine failure. Measles, mumps, small pox, polio and Hib outbreaks have all occurred in vaccinated populations. In 1989, for example measles outbreaks occurred in schools with vaccination levels greater than 98% (Centres for Disease Control). The World Health Organization has actually found that a person who is vaccinated for measles has a 15 times greater likelihood of contracting the disease than a person who is not. The effectiveness of the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine has been reported to be around 50%. In an incident in Kansas in 1986, 90% of pertussis cases were found to have been vaccinated. In another study of rubella, 36% of adolescent females who had been vaccinated against the disease lacked evidence of immunity by blood tests. Following the introduction of the diphtheria vaccine in various countries, incidents of the disease actually increased phenomenally. In France, there was a 30% increase; in Hungary, a 55% increase; and in Geneva, Switzerland, there was a tripling of the disease. All of this occurring after the introduction of mass compulsory vaccinations in those countries. In Australia, where vaccinations are not mandatory and only about ½ of the population receives them, the rates of illness are the same for both the vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups.
What all of these facts point to (and there are many more related to this) is that vaccinations are not as effective as people are made to believe. A person who has been vaccinated has no guarantee that he will not contract the disease and chances are that if he does, it will be at a later age when the consequences are much more serious. The truth of the matter is that when immunity to disease is acquired naturally (such as through breastfeeding or through contact at a young age), the possibility of re-infection is only 3.2%. If the “immunity” comes from the artificial means of vaccinations, the chance of re-infection is 80%. In any epidemic, only a small percentage of the population actually contracts the disease, many of them being naturally immune. If a person who has been vaccinated does not contract the disease, this proves nothing. Chances are that even without the vaccination, he or she would not have gotten the disease any way.
Myth 2: “Vaccines are the main reason for declines in disease rates”
Reality: Most declines in diseases occurred before the introduction of mass immunizations. Infectious disease deaths in the United States and England declined an average of 80% prior to vaccinations. The British Association for the Advancement of Science found that childhood diseases decreased by 90% between 1850 and 1940, long before mandatory vaccination programs. European countries that refused immunizations for small pox and polio saw these epidemics end along with countries that had mandated them. Other infectious diseases continued to decline even in the absence of vaccines for them. This included declines in tuberculosis, chicken pox, scarlet fever, typhus, typhoid and plague.
So what, you may ask, were the reasons for the decrease in diseases at this point in time. Research has found that improved sanitation and hygienic practices; along with improvements in diet and other health factors were the main contributing factors in eradication many diseases. A recent report by the World Health Organization supported this fact. The report found that “disease and mortality rates in third world countries have no direct correlation with immunization procedures or medical treatment, but are closely related to the standard of diet and hygiene.” What this means is that it is not as important to be immunized as it is to eat healthily and maintain personal hygiene and environmental cleanliness.
Myth 3: “Vaccines are completely safe for children.”
Reality: Vaccines are much more dangerous than we are even aware of. This is information that you will probably not receive from your doctor and if you child does have a reaction, it is unlikely that your doctor will report it. In 1986, the United States Congress created The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which acknowledges the reality of vaccine-caused injuries and death. This law requires doctors to provide parents with information about the benefits and risks of childhood vaccines prior to vaccination and also requires doctors to report vaccine reactions to federal health officials. The Food and Drug Administration, which monitors this (along with the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention), acknowledged that 90% of doctors do not report vaccine reactions as required by law.
More than 12,000 adverse reactions to vaccines are reported each year. If the rate of under-reporting is considered, this number should be closer to 120,000. Vaccine-related deaths occurring each year may be over 1000. The compensation portion of the Vaccine Injury Act awards up to $250,000 if a child dies from a vaccination or millions in dollars to cover lifelong medical bills, pain and suffering in the case of a brain-damaged child. By 1997, more than $802 million had been awarded for hundreds of injuries and deaths (5000 cases, 700 of which were deaths). Thousands of cases are still pending and the estimated future liability for the government exceeds $1.7 billion. A portion of the money that parents pay for vaccinations goes to this congressional fund, which basically means that you are paying insurance each time your child is vaccinated.
In many cases, vaccinations are more serious than the diseases they are meant to protect a person from. The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is probably the most dangerous. The chances of suffering a serious adverse reaction to DPT vaccines are 1 in 1750, while the chances of dying from pertussis each year are 1 in several million. A study at UCLA found that 1 in 13 children had persistent high pitched crying after the DPT shot. One in 700 had convulsions or shock, which may cause learning disabilities or brain damage. Vaccinations, in general, have been linked to disorders of the blood, brain, skin, and nervous system. This includes encephalitis (central nervous system disorder, brain damage), paralysis, nerve inflammation, diseases of the lymph glands, skin disorders, allergies, arthritis, cancer.
National and International studies have shown a link between vaccinations and SIDS (sudden Infant Death Syndrome). One study found that the peak incidence of SIDS occurred at the ages of 2 and 4 months, the time when the first routine vaccinations are given. Another study concluded that ½ of SIDS cases (2500 of 5000) are related to vaccinations. In the mid-70’s, when Japan raised their vaccinations age from 2 months to 2 years, the incidence of SIDS dropped dramatically. The disturbing fact in the United State is that coroners refuse to check the vaccination state of SIDS victims, which makes it difficult to prove many cases.
Other important truths to consider include the fact that vaccinations actually weaken the immune system rather than strengthen it. They only focus on one aspect of the immune system, which interferes with the body’s ability to initiate a “generalized response”. Only that one particular aspect of the system will function. What this means is that the vaccinations produce immune suppression which contributes to an increased susceptibility to other diseases and infections. This may explain why the rate of childhood illness has actually increased rather than decreased in this society. Vaccinations also contain additional chemicals such as formaldehyde, mercury (thimerosal), and aluminum phosphate, which are extremely toxic substances that can lead to hazardous effects. Microscopic doses may lead to cancer, neurological damage, and even death. Several of these may accumulate in the body such that the lethality increases as the number of vaccine increase.
And the story continues. This is only the tip of the iceberg and there is a larger amount of information available for those who wish to learn more (see websites listed below). It is important that parents become educated and knowledgeable about immunizations so that they can make an informed choice rather than be manipulated by the medical establishment.
It is important that parents become educated and knowledgeable about immunizations so that they can make an informed choice rather than be manipulated by the medical establishment
P.S. Obviously none of the 3 first people who answered this question are too ignorant to even read past the first sentence- It would be impossible to have answered this question in 30 seconds if you had read the info- HEY PEOPLE THOUGHT ASBESTOS WAS SAFE FOR YEARS TOO AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!!
http://children-allergy.com/why-would-anybody-have-their-new-born-baby-or-child-vaccinated
The Psychology & Physiology of Change…
Rima E. Laibow, MD
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
Natural Solutions Foundation
Medical Director
We all learned that Pavlov taught his dogs to salivate at the ringing of a bell which they learned to associate with the appearance of food. But Pavlov taught us – and the masters of mass deception and control – much more than that.
Born in Russia on September 14, 1849, Pavlov, who died in 1936, was so important to Russia’s dictator, Joseph Stalin, that Stalin allowed him to rant and inveigh against the Soviet State without coming to harm. Not many other people escaped the Gulag for the things that Pavlov said about the State and about Stalin. There was a reason.
What did he offer to the Soviet dictatorship which was so important? Not his 1904 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, not his considerable work on the physiology of digestion and the nature of saliva.
No, the contribution which made him so valuable to the State was to establish the scientific basis of brainwashing, allowing ordinary persons to become so altered in their minds and hearts that they would subscribe to absurd, illogical beliefs. Better yet, from the State’s point of view, these absurd beliefs (“We have the best health care system in the world!”, “Our leaders know best and are protecting us.”, “The FDA and USDA can regulate food safely”, “Monsanto ‘s dominance of the food supply does not impact me.” “Despite his appointments of old ‘oparatchniks’ and globalists, Obama really offers us new hope so we should trust him.”) which, once implanted, were nearly impossible to extinguish. And, once implanted, the torturing experimenter (in the case of Pavlov’s dogs) became the object of affection and adoration. That adoration was also nearly impossible to extinguish.
By studying “Transmarginal Inhibition (TMI), which is simply nothing other than the the body’s natural tendency to shut down thought and action completely when exposed to overwhelming stress (including illness), drugs or pain, Pavlov showed how everyone, no matter what their basic temperamental type, could be forced to respond to that stress the same way, He found that individuals with different temperaments would respond on a different time table, but, unless certain mental characteristics were present, all would succumb to brainwashing and loose the ability to resist the ideas introduced to control them.
Pavlov noted that, for him, “that the most basic inherited difference. .. was [not whether but – REL] how soon [individuals of different temperaments] reached this shutdown point and that the quick-to-shut-down have a fundamentally different type of nervous system.” Rokhin, L, Pavlov, I & Popov, Y. (1963) Psychopathology and Psychiatry, Foreign Languages Publication House: Moscow.
A few weeks ago, a friend of mine brought me a book that he thought I would enjoy, Battle for the Mind, William Sargant, first published in 1957, recently republished in 1997. He was more right than he knew. I had found it remarkably interesting when I read it at the time of its first publication, and I found it even more fascinating this time. But on second reading, it was rather horrifyingly appropriate as a paradigm for what is going on in our world today: People who “should” and do “know better” are apathetic, exhausted, complacent, compliant and paralyzed.
Information on the outrages against our health and our freedom is out there. Information on the “False Flag” events of 9/11 is out there. Information on what Chemtrails are and what they are doing to us is out there. Information on the disastrous impact of GMOs, the National Animal Identification System, Conflicts of Interest in FDA, USDA and other government agencies is out there.
Information on the false science called “Virology” and the deadly, literally deadly, impact of drugs, including psychiatric drugs, is out there. Information on the raids on small, ethical supplements companies is out there. Information on the deadly impact of Codex – the under nutrition and toxicity of which will certainly kill billions of people by design – is out there. I could go on and on and on but you already see the impact: you surely get the point: fear mingled with numb helplessness, paralysis through fear and a sense of isolation, being smaller than the problem and not knowing where to turn first.
This is precisely how Pavlov’s dogs were brainwashed and broken. It is also how the great revivalists of the 18th and 19th and 20th century, including Hitler, controlled and shaped the experience of their converts – stimulation, fear, guilt, helplessness and the dizzying madness of the crowd to carry them along to complete obedience, passivity and affiliation.
Consider: Pavlov showed that:
* Every person has a breaking point, after which everyone would become part of the new psychological order and affiliate with the abusers, showing trust, affection and gratitude toward them
* Strong mingled emotions, especially those of fear and helplessness, would lead to the breaking point sooner rather than later
* Repeated, conflicting instructions or requirements lead to physical and psychological paralysis, hastening the breaking point
* Obedience and affiliation are contagious so that group think quickly and effectively replaces individual thought
* Illness, under nutrition, drugs, glandular trauma or disease all make reaching the breaking point easier and faster.
How does this apply to us? Very well. Recall that in July, 1950 a medical directive was issued in Russia which said that all medicine should be reorganized along Pavlovian lines to make the control of the populace that much easier. All news was controlled. All entertainment was controlled and all contact with real information was strictly prohibited.
Now consider us. We are perhaps the most physically ill “developed” nation in the world. We have a wretched, manipulated, scandalously non-scientific and profitable “illness care system”. We are on drugs for conditions prevented and cured by healthy food and healthy life styles: heart disease, diabetes, obesity, immune failure (including cancer) and auto immune disease, depression, obsessive compulsive, bi-polar and other disorders supposedly caused by disordered brain function. 95% of the world’s Ritalin, a drug so addictive and toxic that the World Health Organization has called for its global ban, is prescribed to US kids. The ever increasing burden of toxins injected into us as vaccines damages our immune and nervous systems at increasing, tragic rates.
Zyprexa, Paxil, Neurontin and a host of other drugs are dangerous, have no real curative impact, but poison our brain function and make us both toxic and suggestible. So does the increasingly widely used barbaric – and totally unjustified – ElectroConvulsive Therapy (ECT).
The media appears to me to be designed to function as a WMD, a “Weapon of Mass Deception” with a dizzying and confusing, manufactured news and election hype, bloody snippets of structured deception, wildly over sexed, violent “entertainment” wearing out discrimination and leading to a state of helpless paralysis precisely like the “Transmarginal Inhibition” state reached by people and dogs ready to shed their reason for brainwashed ideas. Remember, once shed, these brainwashed ideas are nearly impossible to remove.
Put that together with the neurological toxicity of fluoride, the poison that was introduced by Stalin’s scientists into the political prisoner’s water in the Gulags to make them tractable, complacent and unable to mount any kind of psychological, and therefore physical, resistance, and you have a pretty good description of the fatigue, irrational ideas and paradoxical affiliation with the aggressor that we see in the US today when we look around and ask why people are not making huge changes despite the fact that the knowledge is there.
But then the question arises, “How does one effectively resist brainwashing and is it true that eventually everyone breaks down?”
Joan of Arc was never tortured by the Holy Inquisition, but she “confessed”, none the less, to crimes that she did not commit. Why? She was taken to the dungeon where the instruments of torture were shown to her. After letting her take it all in, she was advised to “make a true answer to her crimes” in order to spare herself the horror of torture since she would ultimately confess and be burned anyway.
Is that so different from the pictures of the foreign-troop-staffed “detention centers” all over the internet and the shadow of the FEMA cars with their shackles? Is that so different from the specter of police brutality, homelessness or imprisonment among the largest prison population in the world if we raise our voices in protest about what is happening to our society, our food, our rights?
Both animals and people who will not cooperate with the experimenter or manipulator have a much better chance of resisting brain washing. Sargant noted that Pavlov had learned “When a dog sullenly refuses to pay any attention to the flashing lights and other food signals intended for his conditioning, his brain remains unaffected.” He goes on to note that any degree of cooperation leads to uncertainty and breakdown but that “the thing they [would-be brainwashers] seemed to dislike was a cold, dignified sort of air, rather expressing a certain amount of contempt for everything….
The degree of psychological ‘cooperation ‘ or ‘transference’ that can be established between the police examiner and the citizen under questioning, or the preacher and his congregation, or the political speaker and his audience, is vital to the problem [of how soon brainwavshing can be accomplished – REL]. Whoever can be roused either to fear or anger by politician, priest or policeman, is more easily led to accept the desired pattern of ‘co-operation’, even thought this may violate his normal judgment. The obstacles that the religious or political proselytizer cannot overcome are … detached, controlled and continued amusement on the part of the subject at the efforts being made to break him down, win him over, or tempt him into argument. The safety of the free world seems therefore to lie in a cultivation not only of outrage, moral virtue and logic, but of humor: humor which produces the well-balanced state in which emotional excel is laughed at as ugly and wasteful.”
I would add that the future of the free world, and the world of freedoms that we need, lies additionally in the cultivation of the realistic perception of how many we are, how powerful our conjoined voices are together and how weak, although well funded and well-placed, the other side is.
Over and over they come at us, wearing us down. Over and over we push back and they back off. Through personal attack, through lies, innuendoes, disinformation, illegal acts and dishonorable ones, they come at us because of our knowledge, and our ability to see through the lies (“Mercury is good for kids and does not cause autism”, “Herd immunity is real and you are endangering people who are already immunized if you are not”, “GMO ‘food’ is harmless and will save the world”, Fluoride is good for your teeth and has no negative side effects”, “Chemtrails are not even real”, “Nano Silver is dangerous to you and the environment”, “Nutrients have no biological impact and you get all that you need from food” and so on and on and on) is the one profound threat that they cannot overcome with their bullying and their distortion.
When we are calm, informed, disdainful of their strategies and remain aware that we are not alone, we are so powerful that we can, literally, back the other side off.
If we become so fatigued that we are paralyzed and have no energy left to resist, then the other side, like Big Brother in George Orwell’s social control, Pavlovian nightmare, will have won.
Don’t ever lose heart! Just this month [January 2009] we’ve a great victory for Health Freedom by getting our issue into the Top Ten on Change.org (with 12,062 votes). Then we got Health Freedom on the “official” Obama transition site, Change.gov. Yes, Health Freedom went “toe to toe” with all the “hot-button” social issues and made the grade!
Read our congratulatory press release:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=1910
Copyright 2009
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.
Please click here (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26405) to tell the EPA in no uncertain terms that you are not buying their junk science and you are continuing to buy nano silver.
You can obtain nano silver products through Natural Solutions at:
www.nutronix.com/naturalsolutions
Go to Products and then to Silver Solutions (bottom of left side menu).
Defending Nano Silver:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=1773
Remember that the Natural Solutions Foundation is the health freedom organization you can trust. And then recall that health freedom has a long way to go before it is fully secure. Please make your generous tax deductible donation (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) now. Recurring donations are especially helpful.
Visit www.ValleyoftheMooncoffee.org to support health freedom while drinking the best cup of coffee of your life – Valley of the Moon Coffee.
Thanks.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
© 2008 Colloidal Science Lab., Inc.
Silver Nanoparticles: No Threat to the Environment
George J. Maass, Ph.D. (Colloidal Science Laboratories)
Abstract:
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 “nanosizeâ€
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.
Introduction:
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?
The last statement shows a misunderstanding of what silver nanoparticles are and
what they do. Nanoparticle technology is relatively new to the scientific community for
good reasons: Nanoparticles are difficult to produce; they are difficult to stabilize once
they have been produced; they are not stable enough to exist in nature for very long. The
purpose of this work is to prove that normal interaction of nanoparticles with various
© 2008 Colloidal Science Lab., Inc.
soils and different water sources is sufficient to change the size and dramatically decrease
the biological activity. Specifically, the areas of examination will include experiments
which will establish that silver colloids, which start out as nanoparticles, upon contact
with the environment “grow†to much larger clusters, as indicated by their average
particle size distribution, (a nanoparticle size measurement), and zeta potential
measurements, which will establish that the zeta potential is outside of the range required
for nanoparticle stability.
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 “findings†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
wash water.
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 “clump†together in the fabric and in the wash water. That is precisely the
point to be considered for environmental safety. How much “clumping†does it take so
that the particles are no longer considered to be “nanoâ€, 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.
© 2008 Colloidal Science Lab., Inc.
On the other hand, it is not surprising that certain research institutions are being
encouraged, and perhaps even funded, to conduct research that implies toxicity for
colloidal silver. According to well known internet health forum host, Tony Isaacs, the
reason for this is that “The only thing colloidal silver is toxic for is the profits of big drug
companies.†Mr. Isaacs also states “Silver has been used effectively by mankind to fight
germs and ailments for thousand of years.†“It (colloidal silver) is far safer, more
effective and less expensive than the marginally effective and side effect laden
mainstream antibiotics.†(2)
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
samples.
3. The effect of exposure of silver colloids to sunlight.
4. The change in level of silver colloids with regard to biological activity.
Experimental:
Sample Selection
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.
© 2008 Colloidal Science Lab., Inc.
Approximately 8 to 10 lbs of each environmental sample were collected. From
these, 18 to 20 samples of 20.0 g each were selected, and these were randomized for the
testing.
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
scenario.
Measurements:
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
nanoparticles.
For the trials in which the environmental samples were water, the colloidal silver
was diluted 10 to 1 in the water in question.
Results:
The initial data in this section shows the properties of the colloidal silver used in
these trials. This sample, selected at random, had 81% of its particles at 1.74 nm, and a
Zeta potential of -31.7 mV. The data in Tables 1 through 6 show the results of the
particles found in the fluid after the specified time of contact with the environmental
© 2008 Colloidal Science Lab., Inc.
samples in question. For example, it is shown in Table 1 that when DI water was filtered
through the soil samples, no nanoparticles could be found, but only large particles on the
order of 300 nm or more.
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
Smallest Particles,
nm Zeta Pot., mV Total Ag, ppm Ionic Ag, ppm
1.74 -31.7 21.4 9.60
TABLE 1 – DEIONIZED WATER
Filtering
Medium Smallest
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 – COLLOIDAL SILVER – 15 MIN. CONTACT – 7 DAYS LATER
Filtering
Medium Smallest
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
© 2008 Colloidal Science Lab., Inc.
TABLE 3 – COLLOIDAL SILVER – 7 DAYS CONTACT – NO SUNLIGHT
Filtering
Medium Smallest
Particles, nm Zeta Pot., mV Total Ag, ppm Ionic Ag, ppm
Sand 5.4 -15.7 1.27 0.00
NJ Soil 9.7 -20.8 0.56 0.00
PA Soil 14.7 -2.8 0.17 0.00
TABLE 4 – COLLOIDAL SILVER – 7 DAYS CONTACT – SUNLIGHT
Filtering
Medium Smallest
Particles, nm Zeta Pot., mV Total Ag, ppm Ionic Ag, ppm
Sand 11.3 -22.8 0.94 0.00
NJ Soil 26.9 -22.2 0.41 0.00
PA Soil 34.2 -21.2 0.35 0.00
TABLE 5 – COLLOIDAL SILVER – 21 DAYS CONTACT – SUNLIGHT
Filtering
Medium Smallest
Particles, nm Zeta Pot., mV Total Ag, ppm Ionic Ag, ppm
Sand >2000 -11.3 0.03 0.00
NJ Soil >1900 -4.6 0.24 0.00
PA Soil >1700 -7.6 0.39 0.00
TABLE 6 – COLLOIDAL SILVER – 7 DAYS CONTACT
Filtering
Medium Smallest
Particles, nm Zeta Pot., mV Total Ag, ppm Ionic Ag, ppm
Tap Water 113 -11.3 0.03 0.00
Sea Water 631 -4.6 1.14 0.00
Well Water 32.1 -15.7 1.47 0.20
While some of the changes in particle size seem small, one must realize that they
represent large changes in loss of surface area and, since biological activity is
proportional to surface area, this would correspond to large losses in biological
effectiveness. In Figure 1, it can be seen that a change in particle size from 2 to 10 nm
represents about an 80% loss in surface area for the same weight of particles. This is an
approximation, since the exact morphology of the particles is not known. To make these
calculations possible, an assumption has to be made that the particles are spherical and
the spheres are close packed.
© 2008 Colloidal Science Lab., Inc.
Fig. 1 – Loss of Area
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
diameter, nm
su
r
f
.
a
re
a
/m
l
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
easy one.
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.
Conclusions:
Theoretically, if a very large amount of silver nanoparticles from many sources
were to be dispersed into the same part of the environment at the same time, it might be
© 2008 Colloidal Science Lab., Inc.
possible that the concentration of some good bacteria, as well as the bad bacteria, would
be diminished, but this is not at this time considered a serious threat for the dietary
supplement nanoparticles. The points to be remembered are as follows:
1. This report has demonstrated that silver nanoparticles will grow to
biologically far less active “clumps†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
realistically.
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
very low.
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
silver metal.
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.
References:
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, “Ions, Atoms and Charged Particlesâ€, available at
www.silver-colloids.com publications
5. Zeta Potential of RO Membranes by M. Elimelech and A. E. Childress, contract
No. 1425-4-CR-81-19290
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. George Maass is the chief chemist for Colloidal Science Laboratories
and serves as senior scientific advisor to Purest Colloids, Inc. He holds a
BS in chemistry from Fordham University and a Ph.D. in physical
chemistry from Iowa State University.
For the last 12 years, Dr. Maass has been an adjunct professor of
chemistry at Camden County College, while operating his own consulting
business. He has authored papers and presented seminars on his work in
the all across the US, as well as in England and in Mexico.
© 2008 Colloidal Science Lab., Inc.
Dr. Maass, a recognized problem solver, has the ability to determine the
facts which cause phenomena, and to determine the methods by which
they can be controlled.
We thank the 12,065 Natural Solutions supporters who voted for “Health Freedom” on Change.org.
Now the Change.gov site needs our votes before Inauguration Day.
More information: Health Freedom is Our First Freedom
http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=1733
Defining Health Freedom on Change.org and Change.gov
http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=1762
————————–
First: Change.org (further below for Change.gov)
To see Health Freedom on Change.org, go to www.Change.org/ideas/view/health_freedom
Voting on Change.org is now over.
————————
Second: Instructions on Voting on Change.gov
1. Now go to the official site, www.Change.gov, http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004oSw&srPos=2&srKp=087.
2. Vote “Health Freedom IS Our First Freedom” up by clicking on the “Vote Up” button
3. You’ll be asked to register. Follow instructions to sign up and then vote!
Is this important? You bet. Did we succeed in getting onto the official screen even before we thought we would be there? You bet. Do we need to go viral again? You bet. Is this the last time we need to do this? No way!
This IS what being a Mouse Warrior is about: Using the power of the internet to make our voices ring with the resonance of freedom.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
We urge everyone to follow Gen. Stubblebine’s suggestion and Vote for Health Freedom from through 15, 2009 on Change.org and also on Change.gov through the Inauguration period. This is an important message from Natural Solutions Foundation to health freedom advocates world-wide.
Important update: http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=1762
More information: Health Freedom is Our First Freedom
http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=1733
Action Item: Until January 15th, visit www.change.org/ideas/view/health_freedom and vote for Health Freedom!
Voting Instructions for both Change.org and Change.gov: http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=1754
——————
“Dear Health Freedom-Involved Persons and Leaders:
“The Natural Solutions Foundation is writing this letter offering you a unique and important opportunity to bring Health Freedom into the well-deserved limelight of national and international attention. We have a unique and narrow window of opportunity, from January 5 – January 15, 2009 provided to us by the clever and innovative use of the internet by www.Change.org.
“During that time, visitors to the site will be able to determine which of the ideas presented are important to them and vote for those ideas. The top ten ideas will be presented to President Obama on Inauguration Day (and announced at the National Press Club). When we found out about it, the Natural Solutions Foundation instantly asked all of our many supporters and friends to jump on the opportunity. Perhaps you saw our email about this vote. Between the evening of December 30 and close of voting December 31, 2008, we were able to catapult Health Freedom from 98th place to 3rd place, qualifying Health Freedom for the second, and final, round of voting.
“Three organizations were mentioned on that page. To my knowledge, only ours brought attention and focus on the issue but the first stage victory we won is not ours: it belongs to Health Freedom. Despite the rather astonishing fact that there were people among those receiving our information who actually chose to use the opportunity to attempt to siphon off votes from the rapidly increasing total of the page that we were championing, we are hopeful that the long history of fruitless and destructive feuding and competition between members of the Health Freedom community will come to an end with this outstanding opportunity and we can all agree on one thing: that Health Freedom MUST come in as idea number 1 since Health Freedom IS Our First Freedom. All other freedoms derive from it. If we are not the owners of our bodies, then we cannot consider ourselves free men and women, nor the legitimate custodians and guardians of our children.
“During this round of voting, no additional pages can be added so either you and your organization are, literally, “With Health Freedom or you are lost in outer space”. We have talents and skills in this group that are tragically diluted and inactivated when attacks and warfare deflect us from what must be our goal – our only goal: establishment of real Health Freedom in the US and elsewhere. Is there really any other goal for groups and individuals that present themselves as Health Freedom advocates? If there is, are they really Health Freedom advocates?
“So the Trustees of the Natural Solutions Foundation urge you to join us in propagating this opportunity as widely as you can, putting any imagined or real differences between us aside at this historic moment. Flagellating those differences has never served Health Freedom well. We do not need to behave hostilely toward one another. The other side is quite happy when that takes place: why anyone in the Health Freedom Movement would want to give “aid and comfort” to the enemy is beyond me. There are few of us and many of them. We are lightly funded while they have more resources than we can imagine. Please ask your lists, your friends, your groups, your contacts, your associates and everyone else you can think of, to:
“1. Visit www.change.org/ideas/view/health_freedom and vote for Health Freedom by clicking on the box in the upper left hand side of the page that says “Vote”. Please let them know that leaving a comment or trying to set up another page is NOT a vote for Health Freedom. ONLY clicking on the box counts as a vote for Health Freedom.
“2. Visit www.care.com and sign in if already registered, or sign up for an account if not. Then ask them to go to http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1005813 so that they can leave a comment. When enough people have done that, we can have the information sent to the entire network of 10 million care2 members, asking them to vote, too.
“3. Let me know when you would like to hold an electronic Leadership Meeting to move forward finally as a united movement so that we can accomplish our goal: the institution of choice for everyone on the planet about what happens to their bodies in sickness and in health.
“Yours in health and freedom,
Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine III (US Army, Ret.)
President
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org”