300,000 Americans are infected with Lyme each year. many are unaware they are infected

Imagine waking up one morning with numbness and tingling in your legs and arms and an excruciating pain that migrates throughout your joints and muscles, settling primarily in your hips and back. Your doctor takes a basic blood panel and orders a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the brain, yet the results indicate that there is nothing wrong with you.

The doctor suggests that it must be stress.

The neurologist tells you that the symptoms point to multiple sclerosis or other equally frightening neurological diseases. An agonizing four weeks pass as you undergo an electroencephalogram, an electromyogram, and an MRI of the cervical spine. These tests are all negative. The rheumatologists are also puzzled and subject you to another round of twenty to thirty blood tests. Hinting at hypochondria, these doctors suggest fibromyalgia, but further inquiry reveals that this is a “catch-all” disease with no specific symptoms, no cause, and no cure. Three years have passed, and there appears to be no other choice but to live with the pain.[1]

Reality for real people

Unfortunately, this is the life of thousands of Americans.[2] “Lyme disease is the most common tickborne infection in both North America and Europe,”[3] and according to the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS),[4] Lyme disease is the fastest-growing infectious disease in America, and it may be “occur[ing] at a rate five times higher than the number of new AIDS cases.”[5] Lyme disease is everywhere: if you take a walk in a field or the woods, you can encounter a tick carrying Lyme disease.[6] One estimate is that 300,000 Americans are infected with Lyme each year.[7] “And a lot of researchers believe that a billion people are infected.”[8] But in reality, no one knows the actual number of infected people with Lyme disease.
This article will explain what Lyme disease is, provide a brief history of Lyme disease, and explain why there is a controversy surrounding chronic Lyme disease. In addition, this article will explain how the chronic Lyme controversy led to Connecticut’s Attorney General filing “the first-ever antitrust investigation against a medical society’s guidelines development process.”[9] Although Connecticut’s Attorney General entered into a settlement agreement with the medical society,[10] this article will examine whether antitrust laws could be applied to a medical guideline development process. This examination is worthwhile because there are more than 2,300 clinical practice guidelines currently listed on the National Guideline Clearinghouse web site,[11] and some of these guideline development processes could face antitrust investigations in the future.

Lyme Disease—A Brief History

Lyme disease got its name in the late 1970s, when a cluster of children and adults living in Lyme, Connecticut, began experiencing unusual arthritic symptoms.[12] Consequently, many people are under the misconception that Lyme disease is a new disease that was discovered in the 1970s.[13] But the first known condition associated with Lyme disease was recorded in Germany in 1883.[14] Although the disease has been around for more than a century, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb bacteria), was not discovered until 1982.[15]

The black-legged deer tick[16] is the primary vector responsible for transmitting Lyme disease,[17] but research suggests that flies, gnats, mice, and mosquitoes can also transmit the Bb bacterium.[18] All vectors become infected when they bite an animal, usually a small mammal, bird, or deer,[19] which is already infected with the Bb bacteria.[20] The Bb bacteria “travels to local nerves and lymphatic channels, penetrates the blood stream, and can rapidly invade the brain without the host even knowing.”[21] There is also evidence that the Bb bacteria can also infect unborn children by crossing the placenta.[22] For example, in one case, a doctor concluded that a former Lyme patient’s eighteen-week-old fetus, which unexpectedly died in utero, died from Lyme disease because lab tests established that the baby was chromosomally normal, but “the fetus and placenta were PCR-positive[23] for Lyme bacteria.”[24]

The early stage of Lyme disease is generally characterized by a fever and flu-like symptoms, including fatigue, headache, and a mild stiff neck, and some patients develop a bull’s-eyed shaped skin rash known as erythema migrans (EM rash).[25] But every case is different, and many patients never develop the characteristic rash.[26] If the early stage of Lyme disease is left untreated or inadequately treated, it can progress and cause patients to suffer persistent health problems, such as crippling muscle and joint pain, disabling fatigue, arthritis, neurological disorders, and cardiac disorders,[27] leading to one of the biggest controversies surrounding Lyme disease—chronic Lyme disease.[28]

The actual number of Lyme-infected people is unknown for many reasons. First, many cases are never diagnosed because “laboratory tests have demonstrated serious limitations in reliability and accuracy.”[29] Moreover, many patients never know that an infected tick has bitten them because, unless engorged with blood, the deer tick is about “the size of a period at the end of [a] sentence.”[30] Second, the signs and symptoms of Lyme disease can be diverse, nonspecific, and often mimic those of many other diseases because the bacteria appear to activate the entire immune system, “resulting in a clinical presentation that looks exactly like lupus or rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and many other autoimmune diseases, including sarcoidosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, ALS,[31] and lupus.”[32] Third, physicians have been reluctant to treat or diagnose patients suffering from Lyme disease because many physicians who have reported a large number of Lyme cases or who have treated patients with long-term antibiotics have been the “targets of State health department investigations.”[33] For example, in 2001, only eleven doctors in New York State were willing to use long-term antibiotics to treat patients with chronic Lyme disease. And of these eleven doctors, at least three were under investigation.[34] Although the identity of the complainants was kept secret by law, many people, including Assemblyman Joel M. Miller of Poughkeepsie, were convinced that the complaints “c[a]me from the insurance industry.”[35] Fourth, many states no longer require doctors to report confirmed Lyme disease cases.[36] Consequently, the actual number of Lyme-infected people is unknown, but is it probably more prevalent than reported or thought.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) is a nonprofit corporation[37] that “represents over 8,000 physicians, scientists, and other health care professionals who specialize in infectious disease.” [38] The IDSA panel members have always believed that Lyme disease can be easily treated, and cured, with short-term antibiotics.[39] And physicians who treat chronic Lyme patients have, for years, complained about members of the IDSA panel and their proposed treatment plans.[40] In 2000, the IDSA issued its first set of Lyme treatment guidelines,[41] and doctors who treat Lyme patients, the Lyme Disease Association (LDA), and two of LDA’s affiliates[42] spoke out against the IDSA guidelines, complaining that the guidelines were too restrictive to properly treat and diagnose chronic Lyme patients.[43] These complaints have had dire consequences. From 1997 to 2000, “about 50 physicians in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas had been investigated, disciplined or had had their licenses removed”[44] because these physicians used long-term antibiotic therapy instead of the short course recommended by the IDSA guidelines.[45] One such physician, John Bleiseiss, eventually committed suicide after the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners charged him with inappropriate diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease.[46]

In 1993, Dr. Joseph Burrascano, Jr., an internationally known infectious disease specialist,[47] made the following statements at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Labor & Human Resources, which was the first Lyme hearing:

There is in this country a core group of university-based Lyme disease researchers and physicians whose opinions carry a great deal of weight.

Unfortunately, many of them act unscientifically and unethically. They adhere to outdated, self-serving views and attempt to personally discredit those whose opinions differ from their own. They exert strong, ethically questionable influence on medical journals, which enables them to publish and promote articles that are badly flawed. They work with Government agencies to bias the agenda of consensus meetings and have worked to exclude from these meetings and scientific seminars those with ultimate opinions.

They behave this way for reasons of personal or professional gain and are involved in obvious conflicts of interest.

. . . [T]hese individuals who promote this so-called “post Lyme syndrome” as a form of arthritis depend on funding from arthritis groups and agencies to earn their livelihood. Some of them are known to have received large consulting fees from insurance companies to advise the companies to curtail coverage for any additional therapy beyond the arbitrary 30-day course.[48]

Two months after Dr. Burrascano’s testimony, New York’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) began an intensive seven-year investigation of Dr. Burrascano because he treated chronic Lyme patients with long-term antibiotics.[49] Eventually, the OPMC hearing panel cleared him of any wrongdoing relating to his treatment of Lyme patients.[50]

Because the IDSA’s 2000 Guidelines were too restrictive and did not even address chronic Lyme disease, Lyme patients were unable to get properly diagnosed and treated.[51] Consequently, in mid 2006, the LDA and two of its affiliates[52] appealed to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (AG Blumenthal), explaining that Lyme patients were being denied insurance coverage and doctors who treated Lyme patients were being investigated and prosecuted because their treatments did not conform to the 2000 IDSA Guidelines.[53]

A few months after the LDA and its affiliates appealed to AG Blumenthal, the IDSA issued a new set of guidelines, the 2006 IDSA Guidelines,[54] which were even more restrictive.[55] Shortly thereafter, AG Blumenthal served the IDSA with a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) because he was concerned that the 2006 IDSA Guidelines violated antitrust laws by restraining “doctor and patient choices for treatment of the disease,”[56] and preventing physicians’ clinical judgment.[57]

AG Blumenthal never filed an antitrust lawsuit against the IDSA because both parties entered into a settlement agreement on April 30, 2008.[58] The settlement required the IDSA to “implement an Action Plan”[59] and convene a new and independent panel[60] to assess whether its “2006 Lyme disease Guidelines should be revised or updated.”[61] In addition, the settlement agreement required the panel to “conduct an open scientific hearing . . . [to] hear scientific and medical presentations from interested parties”[62] and decide if “each recommendation in the IDSA’s 2006 Lyme disease guidelines . . . is supported by the scientific evidence.”[63] If seventy-five percent of the panel members do not vote to sustain a recommendation, the recommendation must be revised.[64] The agreement also stipulated that the 2006 IDSA Guidelines would remain in place unless the new panel determines that the guidelines should be modified or replaced.[65] On July 30, 2009, the new IDSA panel[66] held a one-day hearing in Washington, D.C., and heard testimony from eighteen speakers, including patients, physicians, and research scientists.[67] According to AG Blumenthal, the “hearing accomplished a key goal—compelling a fair and full discussion, free of conflicts of interest by panelists, so that all scientific facts and perspectives are considered before medical guidelines are established.”[68]

The new panel did not release its report until April 22, 2010.[69] According to the Review Panel, “the 2006 Lyme Guidelines were based on the highest-quality medical/scientific evidence available at the time and are supported by evidence that has been published in more recent years.”[70] In addition, the Review Panel found “that the authors of the 2006 Lyme Guidelines had [not] failed to consider or cite relevant data and references that would have altered the published recommendations.”[71] Therefore, based on the Review Panel’s findings, the 2006 IDSA Guidelines will remain in place, for now.[72] Although this is not the outcome that Lyme sufferers had hoped for, the Final Report’s conclusion did provide one statement that could be helpful to Lyme sufferers and the doctors who treat them:

· “Guidelines are not intended to be (and cannot be) rigid dicta, inflexible rules, or requirements of practice.”[73]

Because the Final Report stated that guidelines cannot be “inflexible rules or requirements of practice,” state medical boards should not be able to use the 2006 Guidelines to investigate doctors whose treatment plans do not conform to the Guidelines. As such, perhaps more doctors will be willing to use long-term antibiotics to treat patients suffering from chronic Lyme disease.

Although AG Blumenthal never filed an antitrust lawsuit against the IDSA, it is still worth examining if antitrust laws could be applied to the IDSA’s guideline development process. There are more than 2,300 clinical practice guidelines currently listed on the National Guideline Clearinghouse Website,[74] and if antitrust laws could be applied to the IDSA’s guideline development processes, some of these other medical societies could face antitrust investigations in the future.

Applying Antitrust Principles to the IDSA’s Guideline-
Development Process

The Chronic Lyme Disease Controversy

As stated earlier, the IDSA developed two sets of Lyme treatment guidelines—the 2000 and the 2006 IDSA Guidelines.[75] Before one can understand whether antitrust principles could be applied to the IDSA’s Lyme guideline development process, it is important to understand the chronic Lyme disease controversy and why the 2006 IDSA Guidelines are problematic for Lyme sufferers and the doctors who treat them. Although both guidelines have had significant impacts on Lyme disease medical care and have been used to investigate and sanction doctors who fail to follow the IDSA-suggested treatment,[76] the remainder of this article will concentrate on the information contained in the 2006 IDSA Guidelines because it is the version that is currently endorsed by the IDSA.[77]

According to the National Guideline Clearinghouse, “[c]linical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.”[78] The IDSA claims that the main objective of its 2006 IDSA Guidelines is “[t]o provide clinicians and other health care practitioners with recommendations for the management of patients in the United States with suspected or established Lyme disease.”[79] Because medical guidelines are intended to assist practitioners and patients about appropriate health care, they should be based on all available scientific evidence. But when the IDSA developed its Lyme treatment Guidelines, it “refused to accept or meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic Lyme disease.”[80]

The 2006 IDSA Guidelines are also problematic because they actually “promote the idea that Lyme is a simple, rare illness that is easy to avoid, difficult to acquire, simple to diagnose, and easily treated and cured with 30 days of antibiotics.”[81] This is simply not true. Lyme disease “often goes undiagnosed for months, years, or even forever in some patients, and [it] can render the patient chronically ill and even totally disabled.”[82] In addition, Lyme patients are often misdiagnosed because Lyme disease can manifest itself in many different ways.[83] Lyme patients have been misdiagnosed with numerous conditions, including chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,[84] multiple sclerosis, heart disease, and numerous neurological and psychological conditions,[85] such as autism, strokes, and bipolar disorder.[86]

The IDSA and its 2006 Guidelines are emphatic that antibiotics should not be used for more than a month.[87] But even when Lyme patients receive the IDSA-recommended treatment, many patients do not respond to this treatment and continue to have symptoms for years,[88] suggesting that a chronic form of the disease exists.[89] This, in turn, has led to the most controversial and problematic issue with the 2006 IDSA Guidelines—chronic Lyme disease.

Even though there are “more than 19,000 scientific studies on tick-borne diseases” that suggest chronic Lyme disease exists,[90] doctors and researchers who follow the IDSA guidelines dismiss the notion that a Lyme infection can persist after a thirty-day dose of oral antibiotics and condemn the use of long-term antibiotics,[91] claiming they are useless and potentially harmful.[92] But the ILADS has a divergent view: persistent and recurring symptoms demonstrate a continuing and chronic infection,[93] which does not always respond to the IDSA’s limited duration of two to four weeks of antibiotic treatment.[94] And despite all of the evidence concerning chronic Lyme disease, the 2006 IDSA Guidelines actually dismiss chronic Lyme disease as nothing more than “the aches and pains of daily living.”[95] The IDSA’s dismissal of the existence of chronic Lyme is problematic because the 2006 ISDA Guidelines have been “widely cited [by many doctors and insurance companies] for conclusions that chronic Lyme disease is nonexistent.”[96]

The opposing view, which is held by the ILADS and the doctors who treat chronic Lyme patients, is that the IDSA’s 30-day treatment course is “arbitrary.” [97] This opposing view is supported by a substantial body of scientific evidence that demonstrates that many chronic Lyme patients have obtained relief from their pain and suffering, and some have been cured by the use of long-term antibiotics, including intravenous antibiotics.[98] The doctors who treat chronic Lyme patients have further condemned standardized guidelines, such as the 2006 IDSA Guidelines, arguing that these guidelines prevent them from using their own clinical judgment in diagnosing and treating Lyme disease.[99]

Besides persistent health problems, such as crippling muscle and joint pain, disabling fatigue, arthritis, neurological disorders, and cardiac disorders,[100] when the Lyme bacteria invade the brain, many chronic Lyme patients also suffer from depression, thoughts of suicide, “brain fog,” [101] “headache, . . . weakness, memory or concentration difficulties, . . . clumsiness, bladder or bowel dysfunction, . . . [and] visual loss.”[102] Because many antibiotics do not effectively penetrate the blood-brain barrier, these antibiotics are not transported to the brain.[103] Consequently, these patients must be treated with intravenous antibiotics because when the antibiotics are “delivered directly into the blood, they bypass the digestive system where some of the medication is lost.”[104] And even though chronic Lyme sufferers often respond to intravenous antibiotic therapy,[105] the 2006 IDSA Guidelines do not recommend intravenous antibiotic treatment for any Lyme patients.[106]

[1]. Interview with Lyme Disease Sufferer, in Auburn Hills, Mich. (Mar. 2, 2009).

[2]. See Examining the Adequacy of Current Diagnostic Measures and Research Activities in the Prevention and Treatment of Lyme Disease: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Labor & Human Res., 103d Cong. 54, 56 (1993) [hereinafter 1993 Hearing] (statement of Dr. Joseph Burrascano, Jr., Physician) (stating that some patients have seen more than 40 “different physicians over several years before being properly diagnosed”); Stephen Smith, Diagnosis: Controversy More Than Two Decades Since the Threat of Lyme Disease was Recognized, Doctors and Patients are Still Warring over how to Identify and Treat it, Bos. Globe, June 25, 2007, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/06/25/diagnosis_controversy/. Dr. Raphael Stricker, past-president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS), states that most patients have “been to 10 to 20 doctors who can’t diagnose them.” Id.

[3]. Gary P. Wormser, et. al., Infectious Diseases Soc’y Am., The Clinical Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention of Lyme Disease, Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis, and Babesiosis: Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 1089 (2006) [hereinafter 2006 IDSA Guidelines].

[4]. “ILADS is a nonprofit, international, multi-disciplinary medical society dedicated to the diagnosis and appropriate treatment of Lyme and its associated diseases.” ILADS, About ILADS, Int’l Lyme & Associated Diseases Soc’y, http://www.ilads.org/about_ILADS/about_us.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2010).

[5]. ILADS, ILADS Lyme Disease Treatment Guidelines Summary, Int’l Lyme & Associated Diseases Soc’y, http://www.ilads.org/lyme_disease/treatment_guidelines_summary.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2010).

[6]. See 1993 Hearing, supra note 2, at 54-55.

[7]. Press Release, Int’l Lyme & Associated Diseases Soc’y, Historic Hearings on Most Controversial Disease in U.S. (July 26, 2009), available at http://www.ilads.org/news/lyme_press_releases/60.html; see also Kenneth B. Singleton, The Lyme Disease Solution, at xxi (2008) (stating that each year, the CDC “reports more than 20,000 diagnosed cases of Lyme disease in the United States, but . . . [s]ome estimates place the actual number of cases at 10 times or more higher than reported cases”).

[8]. In Re Lyme Disease: Public Hearing Before the Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 177, 179 (Conn. Jan. 29, 2004) (statement of Dr. Stephen Sinatra, Cardiologist), available at http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/health/0129lyme.pdf.

[9]. Press Release, Lyme Disease Ass’n, Settlement Announced in Landmark Investigation of Lyme Disease Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines (May 1, 2008), available at http://www.lymediseaseassociation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=308.

[10]. See An Agreement Between the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (2008) [hereinafter 2008 Settlement Agreement], available at http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/health/idsaagreement.pdf. Connecticut’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, investigated the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), for anti-trust violations. Press Release, Lyme Disease Ass’n, supra note 9.

[11]. Guidelines by Topic, Nat’l Guideline Clearinghouse, http://www.guideline.gov/browse/by-topic.aspx (last visited Oct. 10, 2010). Interestingly, the 2006 IDSA Lyme Guidelines are listed on the National Guideline Clearinghouse Website, but the ILDSA Guidelines are not listed on the Website. See Guideline Summary, Nat’l Guideline Clearinghouse, http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=9537&search=lyme+guidelines (last visited Oct. 10, 2010).

[12]. A Brief History of Lyme Disease in Connecticut, Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Health, http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.asp?a=3136&q=388506 (last modified June 2, 2010); Singleton, supra note 7, at 13.

[13]. Where did Lyme Disease Come From? Is it New?, Lyme Disease Found., http://www.lyme.org/ld_history.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2010).

[14]. Id.; see also Singleton, supra note 7, at 14.

[15]. A Brief History of Lyme Disease in Connecticut, supra note 12; see also Singleton, supra note 7, at 4, 13.

[16]. The scientific name for the black-legged deer tick is Ixodesscapularis. Press Release, Infectious Diseases Soc’y Am., Updated Guidelines on Diagnosis, Treatment of Lyme Disease (Oct. 2, 2006) [hereinafter Press Release, IDSA], available at http://www.idsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=3744.

[17]. See id.

[18]. Singleton, supra note 7, at 6.

[19]. See Press Release, IDSA, supra note 16.

[20]. See Constance A. Bean with Lesley Ann Fein, Beating Lyme: Understanding and Treating This Complex and Often Misdiagnosed Disease, at xii (2008); Singleton, supra note 7, at 5.

[21]. Bean, supra note 20.

[22]. See id. at 174.

[23]. PCR is an acronym for polymerase chain reaction.

[24]. In Re Lyme Disease, supra note 8, at 57 (statement of Elise Brady, Lyme Disease Patient).


Eat Out, Get eColi and Die; $13.5M settlement in girl’s E. coli-related death

MILWAUKEE – Eight years after a 3-year-old girl died from exposure to tainted meat at a Sizzler restaurant, her family reached a $13.5 million settlement with the company’s meat supplier and others, according to court records.

How much is a life worth?

The settlement is among the largest in the nation involving a food-borne illness, according to William Cannon, a lawyer for the family.

Brianna Kriefall and her family had eaten at a Sizzler in South Milwaukee in July 2000. While Brianna didn’t eat meat during the meal, lawyers argued that the watermelon she ate had touched tainted meat.

She died a week later after battling E. coli-related hemolytic uremic syndrome, which causes kidney failure and low blood-cell counts. Another 140 people fell sick in the outbreak at two Sizzler restaurants.

The court records in the Kriefall case were filed Friday, but the case remains far from over. The national Sizzler chain, its local franchise and an insurance company are suing Excel Corp., the subsidiary of food giant Cargill Inc. that produced the meat.

A telephone message left with Excel Corp. on Saturday afternoon was not immediately returned.

The Kriefalls’ case had been dismissed in 2004 by a different Milwaukee County Circuit judge after Excel lawyers argued the company was exempt from state lawsuits because it had followed federal regulations in handling the beef sold to Sizzler.

An appeals court reversed the dismissal, saying the legal action fit within the federal goal of making food safer for consumers. The U.S. Supreme Court declined Excel’s appeal.

Until recently, Excel denied its meat was the source of the outbreak.

But genetic testing showed the microbes that made the restaurant patrons sick matched microbes contained in an unopened package of its meat.

Because Brianna got sick not from eating the meat but from eating fruit that apparently touched it, Excel had argued the restaurant was negligent in training and supervising employees in the safe handling of meat.

The Kriefall family settlement includes $8.5 million from Excel and $2 million from E&B Management Co. of Waukesha, the franchise holder for the two restaurants that have since closed. The $2 million was paid by Excel after E&B argued it was responsible for E&B’s damages.

Brianna is survived by her father, Doug, and three brothers. Her mother, Connie, died in 2006.

“My only regret is that Connie Kriefall died without knowing about this,” Cannon, the family’s lawyer, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “This case is a study in perseverance and conviction that we were right

The information is based on published and publicly available information. Results depend on the facts of each case.

Avoid eColi and the ravaging effects

A natural mineral has proven to kill eColi and all other food-borne illnesses. Guaranteed to work, it packs a punch that pathogens can’t handle.

One Third of Bottled Water Contain Contaminants

The best drinking water on the planet

Sacramento – Saying consumers should know what they’re drinking, environmentalists and the East Bay Municipal Utility District want bottled water to follow the same disclosure rules as tap water.

Makers of bottled water, which include Pepsi and Coca-Cola, say there is already plenty of disclosure about their water’s contents.

Advocates of two bills introduced in the Legislature say there isn’t nearly enough.

Sacramento – Saying

“People tout bottled water as this pure substance that’s trickling from clear mountain springs when, in fact, that may not be the case,” said Assemblywoman Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, author of one of the bills.

“When I pick up bottled water, I want to know it truly is something that’s good for me and better for me than drinking something else,” Corbett said.

Nearly 70 percent of Californians drink bottled water, which nationwide is a $6 billion industry. And by the end of this year, bottled water will have moved past milk, coffee and beer to become the second most popular beverage behind soft drinks, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp.

Bottled water’s popularity is fuelled in part by suspicions over the quality of tap water.

But Corbett and the backers of her bill say drink no way of knowing whether bottled water is better or worse.

Unlike tap water, bottled water is considered a food product and is subject to the same sanitation and preparation requirements as other food stuffs.

Although often advertising themselves as superior to tap water, bottlers are required in most cases only to meet the same quality standards as tap water.

Of the hundreds of contaminants state and federal regulators measure, bottled water is subject to a higher standard for only two, according to Randy Kanouse, EBMUD’s Sacramento lobbyist.

Bottlers don’t have to create a “consumer confidence” report each year like water agencies do. The reports tell customers what’s in their water. It details levels of contaminants, if any, like lead, aluminium, arsenic and salt.

Corbett’s bill, AB83, and a companion bill, SB50, by Sen. Byron Sher, D- Palo Alto, would impose the same reporting requirement on bottlers.

Bottling plants and water vending machines would be subject to annual inspections. Bottlers, vending machine owners and water haulers would pay an $86 fee to cover the costs of the inspections.

Bottlers say the bills aren’t needed.

“There are already comprehensive, stringent regulations in place at the federal level for quality labeling,” said Stephen Kay, a spokesman for the International Bottled Water Association. “These two proposed bills are proscriptive and redundant.”

Kay also cited a bill signed last year that requires bottlers to include an 800 number, Web site or address on their labels so consumers can get more information.

But Adrianna Quintero, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defence Council,

says knowing the nutritional facts about water is not enough.

“It’s pointless to tell me water has zero calories and zero carbohydrates,” Quintero said. “Is there arsenic, nitrates, microbiologic contaminants, perchlorate? If these bottlers are doing the right thing, they shouldn’t have a problem telling me about it.”

The Food and Drug Administration needs to tightened its regulations on bottled water after a four-year study by the NRDC found that of 103 brands surveyed, one- third contained levels of contamination.

The NRDC found the contents of one bottle, labeled “Spring Water,” actually came from an industrial parking lot next to a hazardous waste site.

The FDA now insists that bottled water actually come from a spring if the bottler claims it does.

Bottled water sales have been growing at roughly 10 percent each year through the 1990s.

California is by far the biggest guzzler of bottled water, representing about 24 percent of the national market — twice the consumption level of any other state.

It’s attracted the interest of some of the country’s biggest beverage sellers like Pepsi, which created Aquafina bottled water. Coca-Cola created Dasani.

Nestle Waters of North America owns Arrowhead, Calistoga, Poland Spring, Perrier, S. Pellegrino and Vittel.

But water districts like EBMUD aren’t worried.

“Bottled water doesn’t cut into our market share,” said Kanouse. “It’s kind of like conservation — it relieves a small amount of the demand we have.”

Want the safest drinking water possible?

We have the answer; a natural mineral that kills all water-borne patogens is ready for your use.

Over 300 Pollutants in U.S. Tap Water

Over 300 Pollutants in U.S. Tap Water

Since 2004, testing by water utilities has found 315 pollutants in the tap water Americans drink, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) drinking water quality analysis of almost 20 million records obtained from state water officials.

More than half of the chemicals detected are not subject to health or safety regulations and can legally be present in any amount. The federal government does have health guidelines for others, but 49 of these contaminants have been found in one place or another at levels above those guidelines, polluting the tap water for 53.6 million Americans. The government has not set a single new drinking water standard since 2001.

Water utilities spend 19 times more on water treatment chemicals every year than the federal government invests in protecting lakes and rivers from pollution in the first place.

Based on these data, EWG believes the federal government has a responsibility to do a national assessment of drinking water quality. It should establish new safety standards, set priorities for pollution prevention projects, and tell consumers about the full range of pollutants in their water.

Because it has not, EWG launched a 3-year project to create the largest drinking water quality database in existence. This user-friendly, interactive resource covers 48,000 communities in 45 states and the District of Columbia.

Cities with the Best Water

EWG rated big city (population over 250,000) water utilities based on three factors: the total number of chemicals detected since 2004; the percentage of chemicals found of those tested; and the highest average level for an individual pollutant, relative to legal limits or national average amounts, including for the most common pollutants (disinfection byproducts, nitrate and arsenic). [read more on rating methodology]

Since EWG’s tap water database was published in December 2009, we have received new water test results from several utilities. The database and our city-by-city water quality rankings will be updated in the near future.

EWG’s Top-Rated and Lowest-Rated Water Utilities – 2009

Arlington, TX
Arlington Water Utilities
Pensacola, FL
Emerald Coast Water Utility
Providence, RI
Providence Water
Riverside, CA
City of Riverside Public Utilities
Fort Worth, TX
Fort Worth Water Department
Las Vegas, NV
Las Vegas Valley Water District
Charleston, SC
Charleston Water System
Riverside County, CA
Eastern Municipal Water District
Boston, MA
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Reno, NV
Truckee Meadows Water Authority
Honolulu, HI
Board of Water Supply
(Honolulu/Windward/Pearl Harbor)
Houston, TX
City of Houston Public Works
Austin, TX
Austin Water Utility
Omaha, NE
Metropolitan Utilities District
Fairfax County, VA
Fairfax Water
North Las Vegas, NV
City of North Las Vegas Utilities Department
St. Louis, MO
City of St. Louis Water Division
San Diego, CA
San Diego Water Department
Minneapolis, MN
City of Minneapolis Water Department
Jacksonville, FL

Want to ensure NO pathogens in YOUR drinking water?

Millions of people all over the world depend on colloidal silver to guarantee safety in their drinking water. Here is how you can too.

High Levels of Toxic Industrial Chemicals Contaminate Cats And Dogs

High Levels of Toxic Industrial Chemicals Contaminate Cats And Dogs

Summary and Findings

They are trying their best to warn us.

In the first study of its kind, Environmental Working Group found that American pets are polluted with even higher levels of many of the same synthetic industrial chemicals that researchers have recently found in people, including newborns.

The results show that America’s pets are serving as involuntary sentinels of the widespread chemical contamination that scientists increasingly link to a growing array of health problems across a wide range of animals—wild, domesticated and human.

Detailed findings

Dogs:The 20 dogs tested included 5 mutts or mixes and 15 dogs of 7 different breeds, including a Pug, Great Dane, Dachshund, Great Pyrenees, and others. In the group, 12 dogs were female and 8 male; ages ranged between 6 months and 12 years (average age 6.3 years). The laboratory analyzed composite blood and urine samples collected from the animals. The dogs’ blood and urine was contaminated with 35 chemicals altogether. These included 7 chemicals (20%) with average levels at least 5 times higher than typical levels in people, and another 7 chemicals with average levels up to 5 times amounts found in people. Relative to people, dogs showed high levels of stain- and grease-proof chemicals (perfluorochemicals in the Teflon family), plastics chemicals called phthalates, and fire retardants called PBDEs:

  • Teflon chemicals – Highest levels. Tests showed 6 of 13 perfluorochemicals present in dog blood, with five at levels higher than those in more than 80 percent of people tested nationally, including 2 at levels more than 5 times higher than average amounts in people. Dogs were polluted with 2 chemicals in the Teflon family of stain- and grease-proof coatings (perfluorochemicals) at higher levels than any detected in people in national studies by EWG and CDC (perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) and perfluorohexanoic sulfonate (PFHxS)). Only PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), known as the “Teflon chemical” because it has been used to make Teflon and other non-stick pans, was detected at levels in the range of what is typically found in people (45th percentile) as opposed to far in excess. For dogs likely sources of exposure include food contaminated with PFCs leaching from dog food bag coatings, as well as house dust, and stain-proofed furniture, dog beds, and carpets.


  • Toxins in plastic toys and medicines. Dogs were contaminated with breakdown products of four plastic softeners (phthalates) at average levels higher than those in more than 80 percent of Americans tested nationally, at levels ranging between 1.1 and 4.5 times the average concentrations in people. These included breakdown products of DEHP, DBP, and DBzP, which are used in veterinary medicines, plastic containers and toys, shampoos, and a huge range of other consumer products. Six of 7 phthalate breakdown products were found in dogs altogether. These chemicals pose risks for reproductive damage, birth defects, and cancer.


  • Fire retardants in bedding, house dust, and food. Dog samples contained 19 different fire retardant chemicals known as PBDEs, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers, of 46 chemicals tested. Compared to people, levels were very elevated for highly brominated forms of these chemicals, with 5 compounds that are octaBDEs, nonaBDEs, and decaBDE found at levels higher than between 97 and 99 percent of people tested nationally, ranging up to 17 times the average amounts in people. PBDEs disrupt the normal functioning of thyroid hormones and pose risks to the brain during development. For dogs, potential sources of exposure include foam furniture and bedding manufactured before 2005, contaminated air and house dust, and food contaminated with PBDEs that pollute the environment, especially seafood.

Cats:Veterinary technicians collected blood and urine samples from 37 cats, which included 13 female and 21 males cats (gender not reported for 3 cats). The group included cats with ages from 9 months to 17 years. The laboratory analyzed blood and urine samples composited from all the animals. The cats’ blood and urine was contaminated with 46 chemicals altogether. These included 25 chemicals (54%) with average levels at least 5 times higher than typical levels in people, and another 18 chemicals (39%) with average levels up to 5 times amounts found in people. Relative to people, cats showed very high levels of neurotoxic fire retardants called PBDEs and methylmercury, a pollutant from coal power plants and a common seafood contaminant.

  • Teflon chemicals. Cats were polluted with 8 of 13 chemicals tested in the Teflon family of stain and grease-proof coatings (perfluorochemicals, or PFCs), including 6 at very high levels, above amounts found in between 89 and 99 percent of people tested in national studies, and 4 found at levels more than 5 times average amounts in people. The Scotchgard chemical PFOS, phased out of use by 3M over health concerns in 2000, was found at markedly low levels in cats, at one-quarter of the levels in dogs and in amounts lower than those found in 91 percent of people tested in national studies. PFOA, the “Teflon chemical”, was detected at levels in the range of what is typically found in people (45th percentile). The skewed profiles of PFC exposures in cats relative to humans, with 6 different PFCs occurring at levels far in excess of those typical in people, suggests that cats may have unique exposures or different metabolic responses compared to people. Likely sources of PFCs in cats include food contaminated with PFCs leaching from food bag coatings, house dust, and stain-proofed furniture, cat beds, and carpets.


  • Toxins in plastic toys and medicines. Cats’ samples contained 6 out of 7 breakdown products of five industrial plasticizers called phthalates. Cats were polluted with the breakdown product of DMP (dimethyl phthalate) at an average level higher than amounts in every one of more than 5,500 people tested by CDC. In addition to its use in plastics and other consumer products, DMP is an insect repellant with reported uses in flea and tick collars and veterinary medicines. Cats’ samples contained other phthalate breakdown products at low to moderate levels, in excess of amounts found in between 4 and 76 percent of Americans tested in national studies. Cats can be exposed to phthalates from veterinary medicines, plastic containers and toys, and a huge range of other consumer products. Phthalates raise risks for reproductive damage, birth defects, and cancer.


  • Fire retardants in bedding, house dust, and food. Cat samples contained 29 of 46 different fire retardant chemicals known as PBDEs, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers, with 16 found at levels higher than amounts in any of the 100 to 2,000 people tested for these chemicals in national studies. The total concentration of all PBDEs in cats was higher than levels in 98 percent of Americans tested, and 26 of 29 individual PBDE chemicals found were at average levels in excess of what is found in 90 percent of the U.S. population. For cats, potential sources of exposure include foam furniture and bedding manufactured before 2005, contaminated air and house dust, and food contaminated with PBDEs that pollute the environment, especially seafood.


The body burden testing conducted in this investigation is the most expansive ever published for companion animals. The study indicates that cats and dogs are exposed to complex mixtures of industrial chemicals, often at levels far in excess of those found in people. Our pets well may be serving as sentinels for our own health, as they breathe in, ingest or absorb the same chemicals that are in our environments. Exposures that pose risks for pets pose risks for human health as well. A new system of public health protections that required companies to prove chemicals are safe before they are sold would help protect all of us, including the pets we love.

We can help ensure great pet health

Taken daily, small amounts of high-quality colloidal silver will greatly improve your pet’s health.

Bottled water contains disinfection byproducts, fertilizer residue, and pain medication

Bottled water NOT within the safe range

The municipal water sources of the Walmart’s Sam’s Choice and Giant’s Acadia bottled waters were identified through contact with Walmart representatives, their bottled water manufacturer, and city/utility officials; or from the label (Giant). Data on the levels of disinfection byproducts (total trihalomethanes or TTHMs) in these municipal water sources were obtained from Notla Water Authority in Blairsville, Georgia; Las Vegas Valley Water District; and Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. These data were from tap water tests carried out in 2007, which the water utilities disclosed to their customers in an annual report. For every utility the range of values from lowest to the highest represents the concentrations of TTHMs that were found in the tap water over the course of the year. Notla Water Authority provided a single value for TTHMs, not a range.

The rest ended up in landfills, incinerators, and as trash on land and in streams, rivers, and oceans.

This study did not focus on the environmental impacts of bottled water, but they are striking and have been well publicized. Of the 36 billion bottles sold in 2006, only a fifth were recycled (Doss 2008). The rest ended up in landfills, incinerators, and as trash on land and in streams, rivers, and oceans. Water bottle production in the U.S. uses 1.5 million barrels of oil per every year, according to a U.S. Conference of Mayors’ resolution passed in 2007, enough energy to power 250,000 homes or fuel 100,000 cars for a year (US Mayors 2007). As oil prices are continuing to skyrocket, the direct and indirect costs of making and shipping and landfilling the water bottles continue to rise as well (Gashler 2008, Hauter 2008).

Extracting water for bottling places a strain on rivers, streams, and community drinking water supplies as well. When the water is not bottled from a municipal supply, companies instead draw it from groundwater supplies, rivers, springs or streams. This “water mining,” as it is called, can remove substantial amounts of water that otherwise would have contributed to community water supplies or to the natural flow of streams and rivers (Boldt-Van Rooy 2003, Hyndman 2007, ECONorthwest, 2007).


Currently there is a double standard where tap water suppliers provide information to consumers on contaminants, filtration techniques, and source water; bottled water companies do not. This double standard must be eliminated immediately; Bottled water should conform to the same right-to-know standards as tap water.

To bring bottled water up to the standards of tap water we recommend:

  • Full disclosure of all test results for all contaminants. This must be done in a way that is readily available to the public.
  • Disclosure of all treatment techniques used to purify the water, and:
  • Clear and specific disclosure of the name and location of the source water.

To ensure that public health and the environment are protected, we recommend:

  • Federal, state, and local policymakers must strengthen protections for rivers, streams, and groundwater that serve as America’s drinking water sources. Even though it is not necessarily any healthier, some Americans turn to bottled water in part because they distrust the quality of their tap water. And sometimes this is for good reason. Some drinking water (tap and bottled) is grossly polluted at its source – in rivers, streams, and underground aquifers fouled by decades of wastes that generations of political and business leaders have dismissed, ignored, and left for others to solve. A 2005 EWG study found nearly 300 contaminants in drinking water all across the country. Source water protection programs must be improved, implemented, and enforced nationwide (EWG 2005b). The environmental impacts associated with bottled water production and distribution aggravate the nation’s water quality problems rather than contributing to their solution.
  • Consumers should drink filtered tap water instead of bottled water. Americans pay an average of two-tenths of a cent per gallon to drink water from the tap. A carbon filter at the tap or in a pitcher costs a manageable $0.31 per gallon (12 times lower than the typical cost of bottled water), and removes many of the contaminants found in public tap water supplies.2 A whole-house carbon filter strips out chemicals not only from drinking water, but also from water used in the shower, clothes washer and dishwasher where they can volatilize into the air for families to breathe in. For an average four-person household, the cost for this system is about $0.25 per person per day.3 A single gallon of bottled water costs 15 times this amount.

EWG’s study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company’s failure to adhere to the industry’s own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap.

Ensure safe drinking water for you and your family

We eliminate ALL water-borne pathogens from your drinking water. Try some today and enjoy safe drinking water.

Beware; You Are NOT Drinking Safe Water

In general, people love to buy bottled water for several reasons. Some might say the water tastes better. It is cleaner. The bottles are more convenient than cups. It is healthier to drink because there aren’t bacteria in the water, as some worry tap water is unsafe to drink. Bottled water is pure and better for you because it comes from a secret spring of crystal clear waters in some faraway mountain God himself has blessed. The list goes on and on.

But would you still buy bottled water if it wasn’t as clean as you thought?

Because of the increasing popularity of purchasing bottled water, which has doubled in the last decade alone, the bottled water industry earns more than $12 billion by selling approximately 9 billion gallons each year. It has become the second most popular beverage, beaten only by soft drinks. They make a financial killing by selling water, a beverage you could get a lot cheaper, if not for free.

You are basically spending 1,900 times more money for water by buying it in packaged form, and most bottled water is no different than tap water. Sometimes, it is actually worse.

The Environmental Working Group has been on a mission to test various brands of bottled water, and has concluded that many brands often exceed the state’s legal limits of contaminants that are permissible for their product. In a poll taken in 2009, 84 percent of Americans said the availability of clean drinking water is their number one environmental concern and said some sort of action should be taken.

Trace amounts of various contaminants are actually allowed to be in drinking water (both bottled and tap), as long as they do not exceed the legal and health limits. Some include nitrate, arsenic, haloacetic acids, lead, aluminium and trihalomethanes. A few other pollutants commonly found in drinking water include agricultural chemicals and pesticides from fertilizer and manure runoff, and industrial chemicals from products and factory discharge.

What the hell is in this water?

As more testing is done, more contaminants have been discovered that are unregulated but the number of tests producing these results has remained at a steady rate.

There is a bit of an unfair double standard for those in the drinking water industry. Tap water consumers are given the results to contaminant testing conducted annually as part of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, but bottled water companies are not required to share their test results because they follow slightly different guidelines through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Several brands, such as Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Choice and Giant’s Acadia, sell water that is identical to tap water in many aspects. You are literally buying the same water you would get out of a faucet at home, only oftentimes more polluted.

Bottled water companies essentially use the image of purity that radiates from its label to give the impression that it is purer than anything you will ever drink from the tap. But the rationale goes unjustified for consumers, since these companies do not have to disclose their contaminant testing results.

Approximately 33 percent of all bottled water contains more contaminants than regular tap water. You might as well be drinking out of a hose if you want the same level of purity. In one case, the Natural Resources Defense Council found out the contents of one bottle that claimed to come from “spring water” actually came from an industrial parking lot located next to a hazardous waste site.

Be smart with your health and money. Water is essential for your survival, so make sure you know what you are drinking and where it is from. You can’t always trust a label.

Want pathogen-free drinking water?

Try NutraSilver, guaranteed to eliminate all water-borne pathogens.

Causes of MRSA Infections According to the CDC


How MRSA is Spread in the Community

MRSA infections, as with all staph, are usually spread by having contact with someone’s skin infection or personal items they have used, like towels, bandages, or razors that touched their infected skin. These infections are most likely to be spread in places where people are in close contact with others—for instance, schools and locker rooms where athletes might share razors or towels.

Factors that have been associated with the spread of MRSA skin infections include: close skin-to-skin contact, openings in the skin such as cuts or abrasions, contaminated items and surfaces, crowded living conditions, and poor hygiene. People may be more at risk in locations where these factors are common, including: athletic facilities, dormitories, military barracks, households, correctional facilities, and daycare centers.

Risks from Contaminated Surfaces

MRSA is found on people and not naturally found in the environment (e.g., soil, the ocean, lakes). MRSA could get on objects and surfaces outside the body if someone touches infected skin or certain areas of the body where these bacteria can live (like the nose) and then touches the object or surface. Another way that items can be contaminated with staph and MRSA is if they have direct contact with a person’s skin infection. Keeping skin infections covered with bandages is the best way to reduce the chance that surfaces will be contaminated with MRSA.

Even if surfaces have MRSA on them, this does not mean that you will definitely get an infection if you touch these surfaces. MRSA is most likely to cause problems when you have a cut or scrape that is not covered. That’s why it’s important to cover your cuts and open wounds with bandages. MRSA can also get into small openings in the skin, like the openings at hair follicles. The best defense is good hygiene. Keep your hands clean, use a barrier like clothing or towels between you and any surfaces you share with others (like gym equipment) and shower immediately after activities that involve direct skin contact with others. These are easy ways to decrease your risk of getting MRSA.

Hospitals and Healthcare Settings

Healthcare procedures can leave patients vulnerable to MRSA, which is typically spread in healthcare settings from patient to patient on unclean hands of healthcare personnel or through the improper use or reuse of equipment.

Hands may become contaminated with MRSA by contact with:

  • colonized or infected patients;
  • colonized or infected body sites of the personnel themselves; or
  • devices, items, or environmental surfaces contaminated with body fluids containing MRSA.

Appropriate hand hygiene such as washing with soap and water or using an alcohol-based hand rub can prevent the spread of MRSA.

NutraSilver Kills MRSA

See so for yourself


What does Malaria, Candida, Influenza and Gonorrhoea Have in Common?

Colloidal Silver Treatment

Colloidal silver is tasteless, odorless and non-stinging to sensitive tissues. It may be taken orally as well as put on a band-aid and applied directly to cuts, scrapes, sores and warts.

It may also be used as a rinse for acne, eczema and other skin irritations. It can be gargled, dropped into eyes and ears, used vaginally and anally as well as atomised and inhaled into the nose or lungs.

The following is a partial list of the more than 650 diseases that have been successfully treated with colloidal silver:

  • Acne Anthrax Appendicitis Arthritis Athlete’s foot
  • Bacterial infections Bladder infections Blood poisoning Boils Burns
  • Candida albicans Catarrh Chronic fatigue Syndrome Colitis Conjunctivitis Cryptosporidium infection Cystitis
  • Dermatitis Diabetes Diarrhoea Diptheria Dysentery
  • Ear infection Eczema Epstein Barr virus Eustachian tube infection Fibrositis
  • Gastritis Gonorrhoea
  • Haemorrhoids Herpes virus
  • Impetigo Influenza Intestinal disorders
  • Keratitis
  • Legionnaire’s disease Leprosy Lesions Lupus
  • Malaria Meniere’s disease Meningitis
  • Neurasthenia
  • Opthalmia
  • Paratyphoid fever Pleurisy Pneumonia Polio virus Prostate disorders Pruritis and Psoriasis Pyorrhoea
  • Rheumatism Rhinitis Ringworm Rosacea
  • Salmonella infection Scarlet fever Seborrhoea Septicaemia Septic ulcers Shingles Skin cancer Sores Staphylococcus infection Streptococci infection Sunburn Syphilis
  • Tetanus Tonsilitis Trenchfoot Tuberculosis Typhiod
  • Ulcers
  • Whooping cough
  • Yeast infections

More Clinical Evidence

“A 65-year-old diabetic cut himself on the leg. He washed and bandaged it but as often happens with diabetes, the pain persisted and the cut grew into a sore. Soon it became bigger than the bandage and he had to apply a dressing. Still it grew bigger and ugly. In desperation he went to a clinic. His sore was diagnosed as a ‘statis ulcer’. For a year one treatment after another was tried. Nothing, including penicillin and sulphonamide could heal the ulcer. If his condition had continued unchecked, his leg probably would have been amputated. But finally he was referred to a clinic that treated skin ulcers with a silver compound. This promptly stopped the growth of all bacteria. In less than two months, the ulcer was completely healed.”
(Science Digest March 1978)

“We have had instant success with colloidal silver and immune-compromised patients. A few examples are: pink-eye totally resolved in less than 6 hours (topical): recurrent sinus infections resolved in eight days (oral ingestion): acute cuticle infections, twenty four hours (topical). Another major area in which we have improved our clinical results is in the area of the bowel detoxification and dysbiosis. The colloidal silver has provided excellent removal of abnormal intestinal bacteria: also it has proved to be a great adjunct to our Candida albicans, Epstein Barr Virus and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome protocols.”
(Dr Evan M Kansas)

Who’s using colloidal silver?

  • In Canada, Switzerland and the US, physicians use various forms of silver to treat a multitude of infections.
  • In the US, silver is used in bone surgery and in 70 per cent of US burns centres.
  • Naturopaths and chiropractors use colloidal silver to treat the effects of Cryptosporidium. Ayurvedic and Chinese practitioners regularly use silver in their treatments.
  • Colloidal silver water filters are approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency and also by the Swiss government for use in homes and offices.
  • The American space agency NASA uses a silver water purification system for its space shuttles, as do the Russians.
  • The airline companies Air France, Alitalia, British Airways, Canadian Pacific, Japan Airlines, Pan Am SAS and Swissair use silver water filters to curtail waterborne diseases.
  • Silver is often used in place of chlorine in swimming pools because it doesn’t sting the eyes.
  • Japanese companies are using silver to remove cyanide and nitric acid from the air.
    Nexus Magazine, Vol.4,No.1

The best colloidal silver you can get

The most potent and effective colloidal silver can be found here.

Hidden truths from the Father of Modern Colloidal Silver

Dr. Robert Beck, the Father of Modern Colloidal Silver

An Introduction to my Research

Copyright April 8, 1998 by Dr. Robert C. Beck, D.S.C., USA

I Believe the amazing breakthrough you’ll read about in the following pages is proving to be the most important medical discovery in decades–or perhaps ever.

I Believe that anyone using this knowledge will be freed from sickness, infections, diseases and toxins, the third most common cause of all casualties in the US and the first cause of deaths in the third world.

I Believe this tested and true information can forever release anyone from doctors, pharmaceuticals, medicines of any description, hospitals, and incurable diseases presently known or undiscovered, plus biological warfare agents. Even cancer disappears when interleuken and interferon are again produced by a restored immune system.

Yet experience shows that 85% of the population will ignore, disbelieve, or vigorously resist these data: they’re too simple, cheap, effective and revolutionary. This also requires assuming responsibility for your own health. Medical “authorities” may never tell you this secret since it could ruin their incomes. You’ll see why this dynamite truth must be suppressed to preserve medical profiteering and egos.

What is colloidal silver?

It’s now scientifically established that mild, safe and simple electrification neutralizes all bacteria, germs, viruses, parasites, pathogens, fungi and other foreign invaders in blood. Results are rapid, dirt cheap, comfortable and without side effects. Medical “cures” once strove to match expensive antibiotics to the few germs they killed before many diseases evolved as strain-resistant. Today’s new paradigm is harmless, infallible, and hasn’t encountered any resistant micro-organism. Unlike antibiotics and vaccines and their targets, you don’t even care what anything is called medically. Nothing known or unknown remains “incurable”.

How? Average adults have eight pints of blood harboring trillions of hostile pathogens and viruses, plus their mutations-the progeny of thousands of invaders. Your blood normally circulates past a given point in under nine minutes. So when you attach electrodes directly outside arterial pulse points on one wrist, a gentle biphasic electric stimulus applied for a few hours introduces a comfortable 50-100m A (microamperes) into your flowing blood without puncturing skin. This causes spontaneous remissions of any known, unknown or emerging diseases. Techniques developed since 1991 (Beck) have enabled hundreds of previously sick and dying subjects to experience sero-conversion of AIDS, regain health and become symptom-free as verified by before-and-after PCR and other tests. Previous sufferers from numerous other “incurable” conditions are now well again. Many had undergone every medical treatment known with no cures. Electrification, rediscovered and reported many times over the years, has been mentioned briefly in journals since the 1800′s then suppressed or disbelieved. Electrification’s most recent rediscovery was in 1990 at Einstein College of Medicine by Kaali and variations re-patented. (Example: US Patent #5,188,738 in 1993).

Aids research a waste of money?

My research shows everything necessary to take back your power and free anyone from slavery to disease and to the avarice and incompetence of health professionals who have wasted over 1.3 billion dollars to date on non-existent antibiotics and vaccines for “incurable” AIDS alone. If you choose to build your own device for electrification, there’s nothing else to buy besides a few electronic parts which should last indefinitely. After that the only cost is for replacement batteries, or about $2.00 per total “cure” for any known disease. Excellent professional instruments are offered by several ethical manufacturers if you’re in a hurry or can’tt build your own.

An obvious problem is this suppressed “secret” can decimate hospital, pharmaceutical, doctor, and “health care” incomes. “A patient cured is a customer lost.” Also it could overload Social Security rolls with healthy citizens over 65. It restores health and “well being-ness” to anyone who applies it correctly. Combined with Kilogauss magnetic pulsing of lymph and organs to induce back-e.m.f. which scavenges latent and germinating pathogens, and silver colloids to control secondary and opportunistic infections, plus rapid detoxification with ozonated drinking water, this is proving to be the best Universal CURE-AILL ever known! It’s YOURS. It’s PERFECTED. It’s here NOW.

Although not destined to be “politically correct” except in the underground, and generally doubted by skeptics who haven’t tried it or are threatened, you can easily use these data secretly to heal yourself and your friends. It may never be approved by the FDA. But hundreds of fully recovered patients who’ve used electrification are today’s living proof that IT WORKS! I personally have nothing for sale.

Most respected colloidal silver around

Here is your opportunity to get the very best colloidal silver for you and your loved ones.

%d bloggers like this: