How much do they impact your health?
Dr. Tenpenny's Eye on the Evidence is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Over Thanksgiving weekend, I was perusing through the manuscript of my book, “FOWL: Bird Flu, It’s Not What You Think.” Written in real time during the H5N1 Bird flu pandemic (2005) , it is now out of print. I was looking for a few references regarding the chemical contaminants in flu shots.
The premise of the book was that garden-variety influenza viruses can take on highly virulent properties in the presence of environmental toxins. Given that the early outbreaks of H5N1 arose from the exact same areas of the world - Vietnam and Indonesia - which had the heaviest concentrations of dioxin, (maps were in the book for documentation), the connection between H5N1 and dioxin was strongly made. One of the later chapters was about the heavy chemical contamination in our world.
The core information in this article was extracted from my book. I wanted to ‘recycle’ the information to show how shockingly contaminated the world was, even 17 years ago. I have updated the data/stats with current information, but where relevant, I left the older numbers in place for comparison.
The ‘sicker’ the world is, the more unhealthy our personal terrain is, and the more susceptible we are to all types of illness and dis-ease.
In June, 2016 the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act was signed into law, amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of toxic chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint. Areas excluded from the TSCA are food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides; these are regulated by the FDA.
The TSCA Inventory contains a catalog of more than 83,000 industrial chemicals, up from 70,000 industrial chemicals in 2005. In 2017, Kieran Mulvaney, writing for The Seeker, reported on an study called, “Synthetic chemicals as agents of global change” published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Her article started like this:
How many new synthetic chemicals do you think are being produced on an annual basis? Whatever your guess, there's a pretty good chance it's a massive under-estimate. Fully 10 million new compounds are being unleashed each year: That's more than 1,100 every hour, or 19 per minute. If you read at about the same speed as I do, eight new compounds will have been produced by the time it takes you to get to the end of this sentence.
Over the last 50 years, the earth’s inhabitants have been exposed to million of tons of chemicals which are absorbed into animals, fish, birds, reptiles, plants and of course, humans, putting every living thing at risk for serious health problems, including cancer, birth defects, and death.
Incredibly, little is known regarding the true risks all these chemicals and their infinite combinations have on human health, as the vast majority have never been tested. Incredible, isn’t it? For her article, Mulvaney interviewed G. Allen Burton, an ecological research at the University of Michigan. He added these comments,
“Not only are laboratory studies of chemical compounds generally expensive and time-consuming, they may not anticipate what will happen in the real world.
Chemicals often behave drastically differently when released into the environment than when they are in the lab. They are affected by sunlight, by temperature, by combining with other chemicals, by mixing with organic matter and by all kinds of things alter their form and potential toxicity…
Our waterways are filled with these chemicals - admittedly, often at very low concentrations, but many of these chemicals, especially pharmaceuticals and personal-care products, can affect organisms in the range of parts-per-trillion. Scientifically, to look at the potential interactions of thousands of chemicals and is just mind-boggling, it's overwhelming.”
Even worse, the minimal type of testing that has been done only evaluated the risk of being exposed to one chemical at a time—a test model that is irrelevant in our toxic world. The mission statement of the Environmental Protection Agency, taken directly from its website is, “To protect human health and the environment.” Considering the chemically contaminated state of our world and the condition of our health, that statement is scandalous.
Toxicity is Generational
A study conducted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) found that critical levels of pervasive contamination have occurred worldwide. In spring 2005, the WWF collected blood specimens from thirteen families for analysis. The study was unique in that the specimens were gathered from three generations within one family (grandmother, mother, and child) across 12 European Union countries: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Sweden, and Luxembourg. The blood was analyzed for 107 different persistent organic pollutants (POPs). A total of 73 hazardous chemicals were found in all generations, with some of the highest levels found in children.
Each person - grandmother, mother and child - was found to be contaminated with a cocktail of at least 18 man-made chemicals, including PCBs and DDT, which have been banned for decades. The WWF then analyzed blood samples from 350 more people. In all cases, each person was found to be contaminated with a mixture of persistent, highly toxic, man-made chemicals. Even in Western societies, no one can avoid the onslaught of billions of pounds (kilos) of poisonous chemicals being dispersed across our planet each and every year.
The chemical load in the U.S. may be only slightly less than what has long been experienced throughout Southeast Asia, China, and Europe. In 2001, a scathing documentary on the chemical industry was released called, “Trade Secrets: A Moyers Report.”
The story started with the death of Dan Ross, a 46-year-old man who died of a rare type of brain cancer. Convinced that his 23 years working with vinyl chloride had been the source of his illness, he and his wife sued the companies who made the chemical, charging them with conspiracy. During the legal discovery process, hundreds of thousands of documents were uncovered that led journalist Bill Moyers through a shocking tale of cover-up and intrigue. Confidential papers revealed a campaign to limit the regulation of toxic chemicals and eliminate any liability for their effects. Vital information about risks was withheld from the workers, the government, and the general public.
The Placenta Doesn’t Protect
Another study done by the Environmental Working Group revealed how dangerous pervasive environmental chemicals have become to the unborn. It has long been held that the placenta acts like a shield, protecting the fetus from environmental chemicals, pollutants and vaccines given to the mother. However, that belief was blown apart by a ‘first-of-its-kind’ study published in 2005 involving the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborn infants.
The study called “Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns” was completed by two major laboratories that tested the specimens for more than 400 chemicals. Researchers detected 287 chemicals in the cord blood. A breakdown confirmed:
180 were known carcinogens, including 11 forms of dioxin
217 were known to be harmful to the central nervous system
208 were proven to cause birth defects or abnormal development in experimental animals.
Now, even when precious infants enter the world, their bodies contain a load of toxic chemicals.
NOTE: The placenta is not protecting a fetus from the ingredients in Covid19 shots given to pregnant women either. Fetal wasting, fetal heart attacks, calcified placentas, and fetal death during the third trimester are being reported weekly.
The sum of all industrial chemicals, pollutants, and pesticides accumulated over time in the fat of humans, animals, and birds is referred to as the total body burden. Besides chemicals, the toxic load includes metals (mercury, aluminum, cadmium, antimony, lead, etc.), food additives (such as MSG and aspartame), prescription medications (such as antibiotics and vaccines) and a long list of pesticides.
In fact, it was reported in 2005 that more than 50,000 tons of obsolete pesticides had accumulated in seriously contaminated soils across Africa over the preceding four decades. Due to the struggling economic situation across the continent, this situation has no doubt gotten much worse.
Similar types of ecological destruction has occurred in South America. In 2005, a pulp mill Chile devastated one of South America’s most biologically outstanding wetlands, decimating its famed population of black-necked swans along with most other bird life.
“This was an area that was once teeming with water birds,” added David Tecklin, World Wildlife Fund’s eco-region coordinator. “Now, within the space of just months, it has become an empty expanse of brown, polluted water. It is a water desert. Words really can’t describe the magnitude of the disaster here.”
In China, widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides have adversely affected rivers and the groundwater across the entire expansive country. Near the heavily industrialized city of Shenyang in Liaoning Province, an irrigation canal built in the early 1960s drains an average 100,000,000 gallons (400,000 m3) of untreated wastewater each day from coal mines and plants including petrochemical, power, and chemical facilities. This contributes to the poor health of local inhabitants. Untreated or partially treated sewage water is widely used for irrigation agricultural land, leading to food safety concerns and serious concerns for human health.
Because we live in an era of global food distribution, this is a concern for persons in all countries that import food from China. One has to wonder how much air, water and/or food contamination played a role in the early SARS-CoV2 illness. Hmm.
Another Threat: PFAS
PFAS, which stands for Per- and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances, are chemical compounds discovered in the late 1930s. PFAS are a family of thousands of chemicals that vary widely in their physical properties, as well as their potential to harm human health, the health of animals and plants, and the environment. They became widely used in the 1950s, and since then, many products commonly used by consumers and in industry are manufactured with or from PFAS. They are long lasting chemicals which break down very slowly. Studies on their environmental impact was only initiated in around 2000-01 when highly sensitive technologies were developed. They have been found in both soil and water all over the world.
The presence of toxic chemicals in the body can be compared to the following story:
During October 2003, dumpsters overflowed throughout the city when trash collectors went on strike in Chicago. Up to 15,000 tons of garbage accumulated daily, and as the piles mounted, so did the health risk to the city’s residents. Rats began to gather within 48 hours after garbage was left on the streets. Twenty years earlier, a survey had counted the rat population to be more than seven million, almost the same as the human population across the metropolitan area. Concerns rose at the specter of rats once again taking over the area. Although the elimination of the rats received the most attention, the solution to the stinky problem was not to poison all the rats—it was to eliminate the garbage; the rat problem would eventually take care of itself.
Similarly, during an episode of cough, mucous production, and fever, the administration of antibiotics is not the answer in the long run. The only way to recover health is by getting rid of the garbage – in our water, in our food, in our air and most importantly, elimination of the poisons from the body.
First step: Stop poisoning people with these deadly shots.
How Much is ‘Safe’?
Given we can never eliminate the use of chemicals in our modern world, the WHO, EPA and international environmental groups are continually tinkering with the levels of thousands of chemicals individually. However, what is the ‘safe’ toxicity level of a cocktail of chemicals, especially known carcinogens, is mixed together? Any guess is absolutely nonsense. If a chemical has been shown to cause cancer, neuro-developmental defects, reproductive toxicities, and and more does not belong in the body. Period.
And remember: A Covid19 shot is a slurry of chemicals that don’t belong in your body, either. Period.
Steps You Can Take to Avoid Toxic Foods:
While it is literally impossible to avoid the toxic soup we live in, here are some steps you can take to limit you exposure in your food:
Limit canned food: Almost all non-organic foods in cans have chemical preservatives.
Avoid plastic containers and food that comes wrapped in heavy plastic, such as cheese
Avoid non-stick pans: PFAS are used in Teflon.
Fix popcorn the old fashioned way: real corn, a little oil and a stove. Avoid the “jiffy pop” corn or food that is chemically activated in the microwave.
Filter your drinking water: This is probably the most important thing you can do to improve your overall health.
Buy organic as much as possible: or better grow your own food with heirloom seeds, purified water and the best soil you can find.
Avoid food dyes: They are chemicals.
Steps you can take to avoid chemicals in your home
The Environmental Working Group has investigated of more than 2,000 cleaning supplies on the American market has found that many contain substances linked to serious health problems.
Here’s there list of products to buy… and to avoid.
In the meantime, make your own products. Use simple and inexpensive ingredients like vinegar, baking soda and olive oil and add an essential oil you like to make it pleasant. Look for products that have been certified by an independent institution such as Green Seal.
The Eye on the Evidence substack is posted each Saturday.
I write a second substack, On Walking with God, which is released each Sunday.
Here are additional links to my 3 podcasts, my supplement store and my apparel store.
Thank you for this article, helpful reminders, and all your hard work.
Cleaning, painting, and hygiene/beauty products are other chemical sources that also come to mind.
I have heard this before. Every time I hear it again I am first terrified and then angry, so angry, that our sick sick sick society has done this in the name of what? Money, most likely. Possibly convenience. I recently saw an interview with a scientist who studied the problem with shrinking sperm count and how it goes back to chemical exposure, even through the mother. Horrible horrible horrible.