Hi, Steve Barwick here, for The Silver Edge…
In this clinical study, entitled "Nature-inspired Novel Drug Design Paradigm Using Nanosilver: Efficacy on Multi-drug-resistant Clinical Isolates of Tuberculosis," researchers found that when testing a "novel form" of metallic nanosilver against antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis (TB), the pathogens were killed rapidly and successfully.
The researchers state that by capping (i.e, coating) metallic silver nanoparticles with bovine serum albumin and then testing it in the laboratory against sputum samples collected from pulmonary TB patients with multi-drug-resistant TB, they were able to demonstrate that this "novel nanosilver compound" constitutes a "potent anti-TB drug."
The "Novel Drug" Ruse
While the study results are extremely encouraging, the idea that you need to "cap" (i.e., coat) metallic silver nanoparticles with a chemical substance in order to make them "less toxic" to the human body is ludicrous and counterproductive, as I'll explain below.
In reality, the researchers coated the metallic silver nanoparticles with bovine serum albumin because they were attempting to come up with a "novel invention" so they could obtain FDA "drug" status for it, patent it, and monopolize its sale globally.
They as much as admitted so in the conclusion to their study, where they state, "Encouragingly, the results indicate that this novel design could be further extended for developing improved medicinal agents for combating multi-drug-resistant TB." (See Current Microbiology, 2011, 62:715-726.)
There is really no other "benefit" to coating the metallic silver nanoparticles with bovine serum albumin.
You see, when metallic silver nanoparticles are coated with any substance, whether it's bovine serum albumin, or milk protein, or PVP, or any other, the effectiveness of the silver against pathogens is dramatically limited.
That's because coating the silver nanoparticles greatly diminishes their ability to release silver ions inside the human body.
And silver ions are what actually kill the pathogens, not the metallic silver nanoparticle being ingested (see "Experts: It's the Silver Ion that Gives Colloidal Silver It's Antimicrobial Power.")
So for the coated metallic silver nanoparticles to release enough silver ions to be effective against pathogens, a person would have to ingest two or three times more nanosilver than they would if the silver nanoparticles had not been coated.
And that means the liver and the kidneys will have to deal with two or three times more silver "load" on the body than they otherwise would have. This is most definitely not prudent or wise.
A far safer and more effective way to go would have been to leave the silver nanoparticles uncoated, but use one-third to one-half the dose.
That far lower load of nanosilver on the body would give the researchers all of the safety and low toxicity they claim to have been looking for in the first place. And it would allow more than enough silver ions to be released from the uncoated silver nanoparticles to do the job against the pathogens.
The bottom line is this: The whole idea that capping the silver particles makes them "less toxic" to humans is ridiculous, because you're in essence forcing the infected individual to ingest two or three times more silver than necessary to kill the pathogens.
But using far smaller dosages of uncoated silver nanoparticles would allow the release of free silver ions (which kills the pathogens), while putting a mere one-third to one-half the silver load on the liver and kidneys.
Turning a Natural Substance Into a "Drug"
What's really happening here is that the medical researchers and the big drug companies want desperately to enter the market for silver-based infection-fighting substances.
After all, they know that silver is far more effective against infectious microorganism than their failing prescription antibiotic drugs.
The big drug companies also know they can't patent a completely natural substance like silver, so they have to come up with some way to create a "novel" silver-based product, or at the very least a "novel" delivery system.
I emphasize the word "novel" because that's the single-most important criteria that must be passed for a product to receive a patent and to be sold as a drug.
In other words, for a medical product to be patented and sold as a drug, it must be unique and new, i.e., something that doesn't occur naturally and hasn't been manufactured the same way before.
As long as it's a "novel" (i.e., unique and new) substance or there's a novel methodology behind its creation, use, or delivery, Big Pharma can then patent it, turn it into a "drug," and monopolize its sales worldwide making billions of dollars in the process.
In spite of my concerns about the use of coated silver nanoparticles in the above-described is study, the conclusions drawn by the study authors are nevertheless exciting and eye-opening, because it means silver has been clinically proven to destroy TB.
This once again confirms the incredible infection-fighting power of silver against infectious microbes – even drug-resistant microbes like the TB pathogen.
Think about it: Even silver nanoparticles coated with bovine serum albumin (which dramatically reduces their effectiveness) worked well against the drug-resistant TB pathogen in this study.
Can you imagine how well it might have worked if the silver nanoparticles were uncoated, or if pure ionic silver (i.e., colloidal silver) had been used instead of some "novel" new invention?
So why not just tell people that small doses of safe, natural colloidal silver – consisting largely of pure silver ions which are the active, infection-fighting form of silver – could just as effectively be used to kill the TB pathogen?
Well, there's no money in that for the researchers, is there?