References Unfortunately there has been a lot of misguided information going around about colloidal silver. So let's cover a few things. Have you heard the story about how colloidal silver allegedly turns people blue? If not, you probably will, so here is some good information which will enable you to form an educated perspective. Where are the blue people, if it were true that people turn blue from too much or improperly formulated colloidal silver? where are the documented cases? In order for particles to become lodged within tissue the particles would have to be larger than the bodies transport system, and other tissue components. "The capillary lumen of the human body is 4-9 microns." Much larger than colloidal silver particles. Refs. (1,2,3,4-A) The term Argyria describes the condition of a bluish gray color of the skin, and Argyosis the bluing of the eye white, resulting from the use of SILVER COMPOUNDS. To better understand the misunderstanding regarding Argyria, I will quote from the book "the Micro Silver bullet™" by Dr. M. Paul Farber 1996 page XII (ISBN 1-887742-00-X) In reference to a "Journal of American Medical Association, article,October 18 1995, volume 274 # 15," where cases of Argyria were cited to have been caused by silver compounds (not colloidal silver) "These Case history presentations represent biased and unprofessional writing. The author's apparent inability to understand the difference between a silver nitrate, sulfide, or other silver compound demonstrates their lack of understanding basic chemical properties. The matrix, substrate, and particle size are all critical to the varied functions and reactions with use of these products." Further on the same page. "That is why there has not been a single case of Argyria from a properly manufactured modern day colloidal sliver product. The cases of Argyria reported in the 1920's and 1930's resulted because the technology of the day was unable to produce a colloidal silver product with a small enough particle size." Ref. (4-A) The reported cases of Argyria usually involve very high and frequent doses of silver salts/compounds such as Silver sulfate, silver nitrate or silver chloride. The Environmental Protection Agency's Poison Control Center reports
no toxicity listing for Colloidal Silver, it is therefore considered
harmless in any concentration. However all of the silver salts are identified
as toxic, although the only adverse effect noted is Argyria. Therefore
the concern is with silver salts not colloidal silver.
From The March 1999 Issue of Natural Foods Merchandiser News Pamela Wyngate Court rules that health claims are OK, information helps, not hurts, on labels The FDA lost a key legal battle recently, and now the agency must define just what it means by "significant scientific agreement" for health claims on supplements labels. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruling validated what many in the supplements industry have been saying for years: more information on supplements' labels translates into better educated consumers. The natural products industry has served as the voice of the dietary supplements consumers in this matter, according to Susan Haeger, president and CEO of Boulder, Colo.-based Citizens for Health, a plaintiff in the five-year lawsuit. "[We are] extremely pleased that the appellate court has told FDA to define significant scientific agreement," she said. "This landmark decision is absolutely essential to allow consumers to make informed choices about their health care and is likely to have far-reaching implications." The ruling overturned a lower court decision that had ruled that the FDA could continue to operate the way it had in the past. Lawyers for the FDA have not yet announced if they will appeal the latest decision to the Supreme Court. Some of the implications of the appeal court's intent are apparent in the sharply worded comments in the ruling directed at the FDA. The court criticized the agency's argument that health claims lacking significant agreement are inherently misleading: "...It would be as if the consumers were asked to buy something while hypnotized, and therefore they are bound to be misled," according to the judges of the District of Columbia Appeals Court. "We think this contention is frivolous." The ruling also included the right for dietary supplements manufacturers to put more information on labels than is currently acceptable. This includes disclaimers as well as health claims. The ruling went on: "Although the government may have more leeway in choosing suppression over disclosure as a response to the problem of consumer confusion where the product affects health, it must still meet its burden of justifying a restriction on speech--here the FDA's conclusory assertion falls far short." Retailers said they were excited about the ruling. "From where we are sitting, we see it as a good decision," said Jim Lee, president of Boulder, Colo.-based Wild Oats. "To define significant scientific agreement--simply put, it means that more information will be provided to our customers. And we know our customers want that." The January decision came in a case originally filed by a group that included the American Preventative Medical Association, Citizens for Health, People Against Cancer and others. In 1994 those groups filed a lawsuit against the FDA, asking the agency to define "significant scientific agreement"--the standard FDA phrase for regulating health claims allowed on supplements' labels. "I am absolutely thrilled that the court has recognized the validity of our position and instructed the FDA, finally, to define significant scientific agreement," said Ralph Miranda, M.D., president of the preventative medicine association. "Now, the FDA will no longer be able to get away with continually raising the bar for supplements manufacturers in an effort to prohibit the dissemination of truthful, scientific information." In addition to defining "significant scientific agreement," the court ordered the FDA to reconsider the following four claims made in the 1994 lawsuit: * Consumption of antioxidant vitamins may reduce the risk of certain kinds of cancers. * Consumption of fiber may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. * Consumption of omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. * A supplement with 0.8 milligrams of folic acid is more effective in reducing the risk of neural tube defects than a lower amount in foods in common form. Watch for more work on this issue in the courts later this year, said Tony Martinez, New Jersey- and Washington D.C.-based attorney and lobbyist who worked for the natural products industry on the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. "This decision represents an important and significant victory for the attorneys involved. They deserve the thanks and congratulations from the industry," he said. "It will be interesting and significant to see what objective criteria the FDA develops for significant scientific agreement." -- Substitute for a drug, through a name such as "Herbal Prozac" or claims that they contain aspirin or another well-known drug. But supplement claims clearly targeted to help a well person stay well would be OK. The FDA said naming a supplement "Cardiohealth," for instance, is legal, as is saying it "supports the immune system," "reduces stress" or "helps maintain cardiovascular function." Bibliography: (1) The Yeast Connection by William G. Crook, M.D. 3rd edition 1986 (2) The Yeast Syndrome by John Parks Trowbridge, M.D. and Morton Walker,
D.P.M. (3) Medical Mycology by J.W. Rippon, 2nd Edition, Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1982 (4) Attogram promotional brochure entitled: |