in Search

Lynne McTaggart - What Doctors Don't Tell You

The poisoned generation

Perhaps the most underappreciated health scandal in modern times is the fact that, every day, we are all subjected to some 80,000 drugs—virtually all of which have not undergone a single regulatory test before their release on the market.

By ‘drugs’, in this case, I’m referring to the synthetic man-made compounds that are part of the industrial ‘chemical revolution’. Now found ubiquitously in everything—from pesticides to personal toiletries and cleaning products—these agents have made their way into our drinking water, soils, air, food and, hence, our fatty tissues—and now, as this month’s cover story discloses, even our eggs and sperm.

The latest findings on these industrial chemicals, as WDDTY deputy editor Joanna Evans reports, suggest that they could be a major source of infertility in both men and women. What’s more, some of these toxic chemicals are making their way into fetuses, affecting their fertility in turn, all the way down the generational line.

The situation today echoes the scandal of diethylstilboestrol (DES), the wonder drug in the 1950s that was supposed to prevent miscarriage. The side-effects of the drug only began showing up in the adult offspring some 30 years later in the form of reproductive problems and cancer.

Nevertheless, that was an isolated compound that was allowed to be given as a test drug before the advent of ‘informed consent’. As a 2005 study from Stanford University and the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) concluded: “All of us now carry in our bodily tissues and fluids a virtual stew of heavy metals and hundreds of synthetic chemicals”—some of which persist in the body for years.

The utter regulatory freedom that industrial giants now enjoy makes the DES scandal pale in comparison. As Stanford University discovered, there is no requirement for the chemical industry to test their products for effects on human health prior to their release onto the market other than in the case of certain pesticides and food additives.

The burden of safety testing falls entirely upon the shoulders of federal and state agencies—but only after the products have been made available to consumers and distributed throughout the environment— and then, only if someone raises concerns over specific health risks.

“The result,” states the Stanford report, “is that more than 85 per cent of the 80,000 synthetic chemicals registered have never been assessed for their effects on human health.” The other worrying aspect is the closing-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted aspect of any potential crackdown. Even if organizations such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to put proper systems of regulation in place, these chemicals are now so pervasive in our waterways and foodchain that it could be many generations before we are free of them.

Forty-seven years ago, Rachel Carson wrote The Silent Spring, about the catastrophic effects of chemicals on the futures of plants and animals. Little did she know that she might be referring to the human race as well.

Published 03 November 2009 10:04 by Joanna Evans

Comments

 

gponyeke said:

Hi, Well put.

This makes me mad as it highlights one of the greatest injustices of our time: I cant poison myself ( ie smoke marijuana-which I like) but other bastards are allowed to poison me for profit!

I´m definately emigrating to another planet, until I find a good one a hermit lifestyle growing veggies in the bush will have to do!

Vote with your wallet, abandon the cities, dont go to work! (for other people)

Withdraw all your "money" right NOW and buy GOLD!

That will fix it.

Gerry.

November 3, 2009 21:52
 

uberVU - social comments said:

This post was mentioned on Twitter by InMyStride: The poisoned generation http://bit.ly/H5jcQ

November 5, 2009 00:18
 

hanszuberbuehler said:

This reminds me of the research of Hulda R. Clark, denounced by the pharma establishment and medical society, because according to her findings, polluted food and other environmental threats like chemicals in toothpaste, liquid soaps etc. are one of the main reasons for cancerous illnesses.

November 10, 2009 10:45
 

pchave said:

Hi to everyone.

My own second son was allergic to practically everything as a baby and so we did lots of research to help him, not that there was very much data.

Shortly after, tartrazine was banned.

Since then I've stood by and watched the contents of the larder and fridge gradually become dominated by plastic.

Lovely glass milkbottles went to plastic.  Corona and other soft drinks went over to plastic.  These products are heat formed and so molecules of plastic that fly free inside end up in the product.

Don't believe me?  Warm plastic and if you can smell it, it has become molecular and is free in the air.

Blocks of butter in a grease proof paper are now sold in plastic containers.  I cringe when I hear a knife scraping the last drop out of a plastic tub.  The particles of plastic now being spread on a sandwich.

Next we have shrink wrapped meat, which is also heat sealed.  Heat forces the plastic to soften and melt which means it is no longer bound in long strings and enters the product at a molecular level.

Many canned foods are lined with a plastic, and this has been shown to contain the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA).

These are all chemicals that the body has to deal with and process, absorb or reject.  Where does it end up when you reject it?  In your bowel.

Bowel cancer is the third biggest cancer risk in the UK.

There's probably lots of other reasons for this, but I can't help wondering, when it all comes out in the wash, if packaging is recognized as a mighty contributor to the nations illhealth.

Phil

November 10, 2009 10:57
 

Marston said:

Lynne, you are SOOOOOOO correct. We are sleep-walking into a deadly timebomb

In 1964 a formal Government publication demonstrated the link between passive smoking and lung cancer. Why did it take until 2007 (43 years) for smoking to be banned in public places? In the 1970's my parents unwittingly smoked 100 cigs/day with me and my sisters in the room. In 2009 they would go MAD if anyone tried lighting ONE cigarette in the same room as MY children. Have THEY changed?? No! Have they been "educated" about the dangers? Yes!

And why did consecutive governments choose to keep this information from us for so long (Obviously the ££££££). And why did they eventually do something about it??? Public knowledge brought about by the plight of a wonderful public figure called Roy Castle might have had something to do with it?

So here we are in 2009. Replace the words "passive smoke from cigarettes" by the words "harmful chemicals from everyday products in the home" and you have history repeating itself. How long will it take for the penny to drop this time for an unsuspecting Joe Public???

By the way, Joe, try Googling "Harmful" or "Toxic" or "Carcinogenic" CHEMICALS IN "air fresheners" or "aftershave" or "perfume" or "cleaning products" or "shampoo" or "fabric conditioners" etc...ect...etc... THEN TELL THOSE YOU CARE ABOUT!!!!!

November 17, 2009 20:17
 

polymnia said:

Phil you're so right. I've long felt that the liberal use of plastic as containers for our food and shrink wrap on our vegetables etc is poisioning us. I have very sensitive tastebuds and can sometimes taste plastic in my food. One of the times which shook me recently was when I had a glass of water on a worktop and had put a plastic lid over the glass to keep out dust. I bless my water before I drink it as I believe it alters it's structure to become very beneficial to our bodies and I think tastes better too. A couple of hours later I went to drink the water and realized that it had a distinct plastic taste and the lid hadn't even touched the water.Maybe blessed water is more suseptible but I now put a small china lid on my glass if I leave it. Penny

November 18, 2009 00:26
 

BBFmail said:

I remember when I was expecting..my Doctor asked me if I was having any morning sickness.  I said yes, and he said he'd write a prescription for a drug to relieve it.  I said no...my mom had told me to be careful about taking any drugs...that they might harm the baby.  He got very angry w/me and said that millions of women have taken this to relieve morning sickness...I still said no. The morning sickness did disappear after a few weeks.  Later..much later after my daughter was born...I read that the pill he was going to prescribe..had been linked to damaged fetuses and serious problems in newborn babies.  I don't remember the name...but do remember how relieved I was that I paid attention to my mom...instead of that Doctor...and how sad I felt for the other moms who believe in their Doctors and took that deadly prescription in good faith.

November 19, 2009 14:09
Anonymous comments are disabled
Terms and conditions | Advertise | About us | Contact us

(C) 2006 Copyright Conatus plc. All Rights Reserved.