Hi, Steve Barwick here, for TheSilverEdge.com…
How soon we forget how shrewdly the federal government used the overblown anthrax scare directly after 9-11 to rob us of many of our precious Constitutional rights.
After the anthrax scare we witnessed the institution of illegal spying on America citizens, unconstitutional search and seizures, and severely diminished due process of law.
We also forget how the news media later whipped up the so-called "Bird flu" hysteria, followed by the "Swine flu" hysteria.
Through these manufactured crises, various departments of the federal government were able to pass new "guidelines" and regulations on the detention and quarantine of U.S. citizens.
These can now be used by the federal government to restrict travel at a moment's notice, arrest and detain individuals, and even quarantine entire cities during a declared "national health emergency."
That's why I'm extremely skeptical of the current so-called "Ebola crisis."
Yes, I understand how virulent and deadly Ebola and other hemorrhagic fever viruses are.
And yes, I also understand that the federal government is now said to be bringing Ebola victims to the U.S. for treatment. And I understand what a threat that could pose should the virus ultimately get loose and go rogue in this country.
But I also understand how psychological operations (psy-ops) campaigns work, and what the federal government stands to gain from them.
The federal government absolutely loves it whenever they can whip up enough public hysteria that the resulting public outcry to "protect us" allows them to step in as "saviors" and implement more laws that violate our fundamental rights and liberties under the guise of "keeping us safe."
And folks, this current "Ebola crisis" is indeed a massive psy-ops campaign. In other words, the threat is largely being manufactured and planted into the minds of the American public, through the federal government/news media axis.
Real v/s Realistic
That doesn't mean the danger from Ebola isn't real. Quite the contrary. It's very real, if you're exposed to it.
But what's your actual likelihood of exposure? It's virtually nil. Which means while the threat may be "real," it's not very realistic.
Let me explain with an example you can probably relate to: The deadly, drug-resistant super-pathogen MRSA is also very real. In fact, it's just as "real" as Ebola.
But the difference between MRSA and Ebola is that MRSA is a far more realistic threat to the population of the U.S. than Ebola.
We know that, because the FDA's own testing has demonstrated that 61% of all meat in supermarkets is already contaminated with the deadly MRSA pathogen (up from 50% only last year). And independent testing backs those numbers up.
Largely because of this, some 39,000 Americans now get infected by the flesh-eating MRSA pathogen every single year, and a full 20% of those infected end up dying – constituting more deaths annually than those caused by AIDS.
Now that's a news story, right?
After all, you have a proven, deadly, antibiotic-resistant super-pathogen like MRSA contaminating 61% of all meats in supermarkets. And you buy that meat on a regular basis and bring it home to your family. Wouldn't you want to know about that?
Yet there's not so much as a peep about it in the mainstream news media. Listen carefully. The only sound you'll hear on this issue is crickets.
On the other hand you have a virus like Ebola, which is largely endemic to West Africa, and which at the time of this writing hasn't caused a single death anywhere in the United States…ever. Nor has there been a single infection reported in the U.S.
Yet the mainstream news media drumbeat about the so-called "Ebola threat" is absolutely relentless. And as a result, people are quite literally going out of their minds with fear over it.
If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the mainstream news media and the end-of-the-world internet fear-mongers chanting, Ebo-la…Ebo-la…Ebo-la…Ebo-la…as if they're actually cheering it on.
Why the dichotomy?
Why is there zero fear-mongering over the deadly MRSA super-pathogen, even though it represents an immediate, dire, realistic and already-proven threat to the American populace…
…while in direct contrast, there's incessant fear-mongering over the Ebola virus, which has not so much as even been detected in this country?
And Now for the Other Side of the Story
Here's the reality:
Dealing with the very real threat of MRSA would cost Big Agriculture billions of dollars a year in sales.
So if the USDA and the FDA publicly acknowledged the growing MRSA crisis, people would stop buying meat out of fear, and foreign markets for our beef, chicken, turkey, lamb, pork and other meat products would also dry up overnight.
The entire U.S. agriculture industry would crumble. Billions of dollars would be lost.
So while community-acquired MRSA infections are now absolutely skyrocketing, we don't hear so much as a squawk about it from the news media.
Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Pitch black silence.
There are no talking heads from the FDA, CDC, WHO, or other alphabet soup health agencies making appearances on national TV news to warn the populace about the growing spread of MRSA.
This is spite of the fact that, for example, some 30,000-plus hospitalizations of children for this deadly disease have taken place over the past few years alone here in the U.S. (which is double the annual rate of child MRSA infections since the year 2000).
Why is there no outcry from the health authorities?
It's because the health and regulatory authorities have weighed the astonishing number of annual deaths being caused each year in this nation by MRSA, against the economic havoc that would be caused to the agriculture industry if they went public with this information each night on the national news.
And the regulators say, "This is an acceptable loss of life. Let's keep quiet about it. We'll save as many MRSA victims as we can. And those who die, die. We can't risk destroying one of our nation's largest industries over this."
But hyperventilating over Ebola, on the other hand, poses no serious direct economic risk to anyone.
The feds and their news media lackeys can rile the population up, scare the living bejabbers out of them, and convince everybody they're our saviors if we'll just let them "protect us" from the threat, which of course, is largely non-existent.
The Real Question:
What Will Obama Do?
So the real question is this: How far is the federal government willing to go with this charade?
Would they, for example, allow a few controlled Ebola infections to take place in the U.S., as a means of convincing the population that the so-called "Ebola threat" is "real" so new restrictions to our freedoms and new laws for detaining people could be implemented?
With the anthrax scare of 2001, the Bird flu scare of 2005, and the Swine Flu scare of 2009, the powers-that-be accomplished much of their mission of convincing Americans of the supposed reality of a huge and deadly medical apocalypse directly on the horizon.
"It's not a matter of if, but when," goes the relentless drumbeat from the talking head "medical experts" (most of them being paid, government shills) who have appeared on the nightly news for the past decade and a half to assure us our future is bleak.
That's now embedded in the collective psyche of the entire nation.
So with the vast majority of Americans now convinced of a coming medical apocalypse, what next? What exactly do the powers-that-be have in mind with the latest threat-du-jour known as Ebola?
I find it quite telling that Obama has already used the so-called Ebola crisis to sign a new amendment to an executive order that would allow him to mandate the apprehension and detention of Americans who merely show signs of "respiratory illness."
According to an article on InfoWars.com:
"Obama's amendment allows for the detention of Americans who display, 'Severe acute respiratory syndromes, which are diseases that are associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness, are capable of being transmitted from person to person, and that either are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic, or, upon infection, are highly likely to cause mortality or serious morbidity if not properly controlled'."
The InfoWars.com article goes on to explain exactly how ominous this new executive order amendment is:
"Although Ebola was listed on the original executive order signed by Bush, Obama's amendment ensures that Americans who merely show signs of respiratory illness, with the exception of influenza, can be forcibly detained by medical authorities.
Although the quarantining of people suspected of being infected with the Ebola virus seems like a perfectly logical move, the actual preconditions for this to happen aren't restricted to just those suffering from the disease.
As we highlighted earlier this week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has measures in place for dealing with an outbreak of a communicable disease which allow for the quarantine of 'well persons' who 'do not show symptoms' of the disease.
In addition, under the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, public health authorities and governors would be given expanded police powers to seize control of communications devices, public and private property, as well as a host of other draconian measures in the event of a public health emergency.
When the legislation was introduced, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons warned that it 'could turn governors into dictators'."
The $64,000 Question
So why does the government/news media axis downplay a very realistic medical threat like MRSA, with very real deaths, and very real impacts on literally thousands of American families every single year, yet relentlessly hype an unrealistic "medical crisis" like Ebola that's virtually non-existent in this country?
I don't ask that question to start arguments or to inspire conspiracy theories. I ask it only to bring some semblance of sanity to the table in regards to the supposed "Ebola crisis" and the panic and mass hysteria now evolving around it.
At this point, the so-called "Ebola crisis" is a fabricated one. And the sooner we realize it, the lower the chances are that the federal government can take further advantage of it by reducing our freedoms under the guise of "saving" us.
Why So Fearful?
If you absolutely need to be fearful, you'd have far more reason to be fearful of a deadly MRSA superbug infection striking your household than you would an Ebola infection.
You can come into contact with the MRSA superbug just about any day of the week – right now – especially when you shop for meat at your local supermarket.
What's more, with MRSA all you need is a small cut or scratch on your body for it to go internal, induce sepsis, cause organ failure and other calamities, giving you a one-in-five chance of living through the infection.
(But thankfully, colloidal silver cures MRSA with relative ease. See the clinical and anecdotal evidence presented on the Colloidal Silver Cures MRSA website, and in my article "Does Colloidal Silver Really Cure MRSA?")
So your likelihood of coming into contact with the deadly MRSA pathogen is quite high. But your likelihood of being anywhere near the vicinity of an Ebola victim is just about zero.
So please think about it.
My advice is this: If you've got to panic over something, then panic over something that represents a realistic threat, rather than a sensationalistic threat.
Ebola may be a "real" threat, but it's not a very realistic threat here in the U.S. At least, not yet.
The true threat at this point is the federal government and the new regulations being implemented to give the federal government the power to detain anybody they want, at any time, under the guise of a "national health crisis."
Colloidal Silver and Ebola:
What We Know So Far
Which, finally, brings us to the topic of colloidal silver and Ebola. Here's the good news:
Back in 2008, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in conjunction with several other federal agencies quietly conducted clinical research into the use of silver nanoparticles against Ebola and other hemorrhagic fever viruses.
And what they found was astonishing. They discovered that silver nanoparticles were highly effective against these deadly viruses, including the Ebola virus.
They later presented their findings to federal health regulators and other national health authorities. But it was all kept top secret. The presentation was called "Silver Nanoparticles Neutralize Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses."
And the gist of the presentation was that silver nanoparticles displayed "powerful neutralizing effects against hemorrhagic fever viruses," including Arenavirus and Filovirus (i.e., Ebola).
This clinical presentation was conducted under the auspices of the DOD's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction.
And the presentation was given by researchers from the Applied Biotechnology Branch, 711th Human Performance Wing of the Air Force Research Laboratory.
In other words, those are the big guns, folks! Which is to say, those are the very people responsible for keeping this nation safe from outside threats like bioterrorism.
That clinical presentation, made to federal regulators and national health authorities, was later summarized in a printed document, de-classified, and cleared for public release.
But there was no news media hoopla surrounding the release of this information. Not a peep.
And to this very day, to my knowledge, there still hasn't been a single report in the mainstream news media on the release of this important information, in spite of the fact that Department of Defense researchers found antimicrobial silver to be profoundly effective against Ebola and other hemorrhagic fever viruses, under certain circumstances which we'll discuss below.
Before we get into the results of this research, as documented in the published version of the DOD presentation, it's important to note that one of the main tasks of the DOD's Defense Threat Reduction Agency is to "anticipate and mitigate future threats long before they have a chance to harm the United States and our allies."
In other words, the researchers were specifically looking for ways to stop Ebola or other hemorrhagic fever viruses from damaging our national security.
And the results they found when using silver nanoparticles for that precise purpose were strikingly positive – enough so to warrant not just the presentation to health and regulatory authorities, but its later publication and public release.
What Researchers Discovered
The researchers tested silver nanoparticles of several different sizes and concentrations on infected cells in vitro (meaning, in the test tube).
And they concluded that silver nanoparticles were able to neutralize hemorrhagic fever viruses inside the cells by "decreasing S segment gene expression and concomitantly decreasing progeny virus production."
Translation: Silver stops the Ebola virus and related hemorrhagic fever viruses from replicating inside the cells. And when there's no viral replication inside the cells, there's no spread of infection!
The researchers had discovered the holy grail Ebola treatments. But they also discovered that neutralization of the virus by silver occurs during the early phases of viral replication.
Therefore, they pointed out that for antimicrobial silver to be effective against Ebola and other hemorrhagic fever viruses, the treatment would have to be administered PRIOR to viral infection or at least within the first few hours after initial exposure to the virus.
In other words, for antimicrobial silver to be effective, an exposed person would need to have already been taking it, or at the very least would have to start taking it within a few short hours of exposure to an infected individual.
Another interesting thing the researchers discovered is that while an enzymatic protein called Cathepsin B has been shown to play an essential role in Ebola virus replication, silver nanoparticles work to decrease cathepsin activity, thus further limiting viral replication in the cell and subsequent spread of the virus to other cells.
And by far the most interesting thing the researchers discovered (at least, to me) is that only very low concentrations of silver nanoparticles were necessary to prevent replication of the virus.
Indeed, low concentrations of 10 ppm nanosilver appears to have worked better than higher concentrations of 25 ppm or 50 ppm nanosilver. This means there's no need for overly high silver concentrations.
What's more, the smallest silver particles tested by the researchers worked far better than the larger silver particles tested.
This demonstrates once more that the use of very small silver particles is far more important than the "ppm" or concentration of the colloidal silver solution one is using.
Simply put, smaller silver particles penetrate cells and tissues easier, and are therefore better able to get to the point of infection before the virus spreads.
Here's a link to the printed version of the DOD clinical presentation, so you can scroll through it and read it for yourself. It's technical. But if you take your time it's relatively understandable.
Thinking Out Loud:
Here's What I'd Do in Case of Ebola
People have written to ask me, "Steve, how much colloidal silver would you have to take in order to protect yourself from an Ebola infection?"
And of course, the answer is, no one knows for sure. As I mentioned, the DOD research discussed above was in vitro (i.e., laboratory test tube) research.
And while it demonstrated that very small particles of silver at surprisingly low concentrations could stop the Ebola virus in infected cells from replicating and spreading, it in no way gives us so much as a clue as to how much colloidal silver a living human being would have to take in order to achieve the same results.
Now I know that's probably not what you want to hear. But just as I refuse to join in with all of the doom-and-gloom hype about the supposed coming worldwide Ebola apocalypse, in like manner I also refuse to join in with those making blanket statements that colloidal silver is the sure-fire "cure" for Ebola.
Under real-life conditions, it might, or might not prove to be effective.
And if colloidal silver did prove to be effective, the research seems to indicate it would depend upon getting the right dose of very small silver particles into your body, early enough in the infective process to stop viral replication.
Indeed, it appears that to have the very best chance of protection, utilizing colloidal silver in small amounts on a daily basis would be the way to go.
In other words, based on the DOD study, daily prophylactic dosing with colloidal silver before exposure to the Ebola virus would appear to provide better protection than dosing after exposure.
This is just one reason why I continue to take my usual one-ounce per day dosage of colloidal silver, which is just about right for my body weight.
(See "How Much Colloidal Silver Can You Take Safely Each Day?" to learn the simple formula for determining your safe daily colloidal silver dosage, based on your body weight and the ppm of the colloidal silver solution you're using.)
But again, since there's been no in vivo testing that we know of (i.e., no testing of colloidal silver usage in a real-life human being infected with Ebola) there's simply no way to know for an absolute certainty if regular oral use of colloidal silver would provide an adequate amount of protection upon exposure to the Ebola virus.
Nebulizing Colloidal Silver
Some people have pointed out that in the event of exposure to the Ebola virus, immediately nebulizing with colloidal silver (i.e., inhaling an atomized mist of colloidal silver into the lungs, using a device called a medical nebulizer) would be a potentially effective way to get colloidal silver into the bloodstream, cells and tissues of the human body quickly and effectively.
And that's a very good possibility. Why? Because just about anything inhaled into the lungs has a far better chance of making it into the bloodstream, cells and tissues of the body faster than oral ingestion.
Indeed, were I to suspect that I'd just been exposed to a person infected with Ebola, probably the first thing I'd do would be to high-tail it back home, break out my medical nebulizer, fill the little basin with very small particle size colloidal silver of 10 ppm concentration, turn the machine on and inhale the colloidal silver mist into my lungs for five or six minutes.
And I'd probably repeat the process every few hours for up to five or six times.
(See "Using Colloidal Silver With a Nebulizer" to learn what the experts say about nebulizing colloidal silver, including a brief video demonstration of how easy it is to use a medical nebulizer.)
After that, if the colloidal silver didn't work, it would be too late anyway, as the viral replication kicks into high gear after several hours, and antimicrobial silver only works during the first few hours according to the DOD report.
Now all of that is pure layman's speculation on my part in terms of what might work. I'm just talking off the top of my head. I'm no doctor. And I'm not "prescribing" for anyone else, of course.
After all, nobody's ever had to do this before. So use of oral doses of colloidal silver for Ebola is an unknown factor in terms of knowing how much to use, how to use it effectively, and when to use it.
But based on the DOD research, it would seem to me that the key would be quick action utilizing 10 ppm colloidal silver with a very small particle size, and getting it into the cells and tissues of the body as quickly as possible.
Even more preferable, the research suggests, would be to take a small amount of colloidal silver prophylactically (i.e., before the fact), on a daily basis, so it's already in the body in the event of exposure to Ebola.
One More Interesting Thought
My good friend Skip W. wrote to say that if he were in an area where Ebola virus outbreaks were taking place, one thing he'd do is wear a protective face mask any time he had to go out into the public, such as to the supermarket or mall.
I believe he's talking about the white surgical face masks, for example, like those you see doctors wearing in the surgical ward. These light-weight surgical masks are often available on various survivalist-oriented or "prepper" websites.
In fact, I just now went to Amazon.com, and using their search engine I typed in the search terms "surgical face mask" and "antimicrobial face mask." Those two search terms brought up an amazing array of such masks, at fairly reasonable prices.
Skip also pointed out that he'd saturate the mask on both sides with a fine mist of colloidal silver and allow it to air dry before putting it on to go out into the public.
And he said he'd also lightly spray his hands and face with colloidal silver at the same time, and allow it to air dry, as well.
Skip explained "I'm asthmatic, and I've done this before as a precautionary measure when going out into the public during flu outbreaks, for example. I may look a bit strange but I seldom ever get the flu."
Obviously, Skip is a forward thinker. And it's probably not a bad idea to take such precautions should the situation ever truly warrant it. At this point in time, however, it does not.
To sum up, at this point in time (August 2014) in the United States the so-called "Ebola crisis" is the modern-day equivalent of Shakespeare's "Much ado about nothing."
While Ebola is a very real danger should one become exposed to the disease, the threat of exposure is not yet very realistic. In fact, the threat is pretty much nil here in the U.S. where all of the unnecessary panic is nevertheless taking place.
The only thing this manufactured panic will serve at this point is the very real threat of the federal government stepping in and using the panic to institute even greater restrictions on our fundamental freedoms and liberties.
As Obama's old mentor Rahm Emanuel so famously stated, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." The federal government is certainly following that advice.
Compared to the very realistic threat of acquiring a superbug infection such as MRSA, the threat of Ebola pales in comparison.
Nevertheless, should Ebola ever become an actual threat in this country the DOD report described above gives us some very good hope that colloidal silver could be a bona-fide first-line of defense if used quickly enough at 10 ppm concentration, and in very small particle size.