Saturday, January 2, 2010

Playing Biological Roulette

   "Mixing synthetic chemicals in our bodies has become tantamount to playing with a chemistry set without an instruction manual. During a speech before the 1994 conference of the American College for the Advancement of Medicine, an internationally recognized expert in toxicology, Samuel Epstein, predicted that one-third of us will get cancer in our lifetimes as a result of this chemical experiment. A decade later other cancer researchers increased the odds to one out of every two of us being diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lives.
   A cancer study compiled in 2005 by three medical science researchers at the University of Massachusetts provided a half century of data showing the pattern of connections between synthetic chemical production and higher rates of cancer. From 1950 to 2001 the incidence for all types of cancer in the United States increased by 85%, and that was the age-adjusted rate, which means the increase has nothing to do with people living longer. The fastest-growing rate of cancer for any age group over the past two decades has been among children, who cannot be accused of having smoked or partied or worked or stressed themselves into a diseased state.
   Since 1950,  the explosive growth in certain types of cancer has become mind-numbing. Skin melanoma cases are up 690%. Prostate cancer up 286%. Thyroid cancer up 258%. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma up 249%. Liver and intrahepatic cancer up 234%. Kidney and renal pelvis cancers up 182%, and the list goes on. What triggered this huge explosion in cases of cancer?
   In his speech Dr. Epstein laid the blame squarely on the synthetics chemical revolution. He described how in 1940, by using new technology, synthetic chemicals were created that had never existed before. With the advent of thermal and catalytic cracking, it became possible to take petroleum and isolate particular chemicals and then, with a process of molecular splicing and recombination to produce andy chemical you wanted to produce.
   "In 1940, we produced about one billion pounds of new synthetic chemicals. By 1950, the figure had reached fifty billion pounds, and by the late 1980's, it became 500 billion pounds, including a wide range of toxic, carcinogenic, neurotoxic and other chemicals. Most of these chemicals have never been tested for toxic, carcinogenic or environmental effects."
   The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a branch of the federal government's National Institues of Health, has posted a fact sheet on its Web site that makes a rather remarkable admission. It is a direct challenge to the synthetic belief system's assurances that having these chemicals in our bodies and in the environment is normal and a benign additive to nature, and to our own nature: (italics mine)
   "We're stuggling to look at where genetics and the environment interact in the human cell, causing a molecule to change that starts a kind of chain reaction leading to disease. Scientists liken the changes to a cascade---a series of ever-larger waterfalls of cellular changes---that may lead to cancer. Parkinson's, arthritis, heart disease, or other diseases. Though we still do not understand the root causes of many of these serious chronic diseases, we suspect they can be caused or triggered by chemicals and other environmental exposures from years before."
   Within the collection of essays that form the book Ecological Medicine, published in 2004, is this forthright and brilliant summary by Kenny Ausubel of the dilemma that challenges all of us: "For decades, the scientific and medical community has accepted that a certain amount of pollution and disease s just the price we have to pay for modern life. This is called the 'risk paradigm,' and it essentially means that it is society's burden to prove that new technologies and industrial processes are harmful, usually one chemical or technology at a time. The risk paradigm assumes that there are 'acceptable' levels of contamination the earth and our bodies undistracted by the 'irrational' fears and demads of the public. The 'science' behind it is driven by large commercial interests and can hardly be considered impartial or in the public interest. Viewed with any distance at all, the risk paradigm is at best a high-stakes game of biological roulette with all the cambers loaded."
   We are confronted every day of our lives by chemical toxins with the potential to harm us. It seems as if there is no escape. So let's be honest with each other. By willingly participating in the risky synthetics paradigm we have implicitly agreed to a social contract in which we are each playing the role of guinea pig in a continuing chemical and genetic experiment.
   Some of us will sicken or die during this experiment. A few of us might mutate and evolve effective immune system defenses. Others of us will decide to not longer play this deadly game. Once the genie of awareness is set loose, once denial is penetrated and the truth is spoken, none of us have an excuse to play the innocent victim anymore."

Excerpt from "The Hundred Year Lie" by Randall Fitzgerald

So I ask you today, just exactly how many chemicals do you allow to be put in to and on your body? Think about all of your personal care products; shampoo, lotions, toothpaste, cleaning products, laundry and washing soaps, synthetics, pharmaceuticals, fluoride and chlorine in your water, herbicides/pesticides/fungicides and other chemicals in your food, hormones/steroids/antibiotics in your food  supply, chemicals for your yard or inside your home, air fresheners in your car, dry cleaning chemicals, drugs, alcohol.......and the list goes on.
We choose to consume products called "food", that are nothing of the sort. 'Foodstuffs' in boxes that can sit on shelves for decades, things in plastics, or cans, filled with BPA's and other chemicals. And don't get me started on "fastfood".

We wonder why we get sick? We wonder why our immunity is low? Why do some people experience what has been classified as "AIDS", which is basically just low immunity. Why the explosion of cancers since the early 1900's, when most of the chemicals and poisons did not exist?
Beauchamp had it right,  "The primary cause of disease is in us, always in us."
And Pasteur's dying words, "Beauchamp is right, the germ is nothing, and the terrain is everything."

I'm asking all of my readers to start the new year off right. Evaluate your terrain. Evaluate your kitchen cupboards, refrigerators, medicine cabinets, homes, diets, and lifestyles.
See what you can do this year to clean up your "living home", your terrain, your inner ecosystem. Your body, and your health, will thank you for it.

1 comment:

  1. Bingo. Neurotoxic and carcinogenic chemicals are impossible to avoid completely (short of quitting food, air and water), but limiting some of the most potent culprits can put a big dent in the risk. On the top of my proactive list: eating organic whole foods; reserving drugs and vaccines (both of which are generally highly toxic and immune disrupting) for extenuating circumstances; and sharply limiting or avoiding food allergens and concentrated forms of fructose (which is as hard on the liver as alcohol, and responsible for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease now epidemic in children). The less our bodies have to detoxify and produce antibodies against, the more energy they have for more productive activities.