Thursday, January 29, 2015

The Low Dose Makes the Poison- EDC's & the Chemical Manipulation of Humanity

This is from 2009. Yes, 2009. Six years back.

First a 7 minute interview!- Air Date: Week of September 4, 2009

stream/download this segment as an MP3 file

 Modern toxicology doesn't typically test chemicals for what they do at low doses. But, sometimes, small amounts of substances can be harmful to human health, especially when it comes to the hormone-mimicking chemicals known as endocrine disruptors.
Transcript: I will highlight some interesting bits!

CURWOOD: It’s Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood.
YOUNG: And I’m Jeff Young.
When toxicologists test a chemical’s safety they typically use high doses to find health problems. But that approach has missed the potential dangers of some substances that can be hazardous in tiny amounts. They’re known as endocrine disruptors because they mimic or block hormones. Some, like bisphenol A, and phthalates, are common ingredients in plastics and other consumer items.
Recently, ( keep in mind, please this interview is nearly 6 years old)the Government’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences published a paper challenging regulators to change chemical safety tests to reflect this emerging scientific understanding about low doses. Dr. J. Peterson Myers is the lead author.

MYERS: Our regulatory safety net, the FDA or the EPA, the all depend upon a core assumption – that when they test at high doses those tests will reveal what’s happening at low doses. The problem is that when you’re dealing with contaminants that behave like hormones, it doesn’t work that way.

Pete Myers (Courtesy of Environment Health Sciences)
They do one thing at high doses and potentially something completely different at low doses. So if you are dependent upon high dose testing which is the way our system works, you will never see the low dose effects. And what that means is all of the high dose testing that we’ve done for decades have been blind to this type of effect.
YOUNG: Why is it that these chemicals can start to show problems at low doses instead of at high doses?

MYERS: What hormones and these contaminants do is at very low doses they turn on and off genes. Genes are being turned on and off trillions of times a second throughout your lifetime. And the orchestration of that is absolutely vital to life. If the genes get turned on or off at the wrong time, that’s gonna lead to a problem. You’re gonna lack a protein that might be important for example in suppressing a tumor or in controlling the growth of your heart. And the body’s control system for these genes is designed to function at really, really low levels. The low dose is the poison!
This is precisely the issue that was pointed out to readers here, in the post from last week which included an excellent video,  relinked below, these minute doses are altering our genetics. This has been known for years and years.- Petro/Chemical Lobby win- The Chemical Manipulation of Humanity to worsen
After watching this video you will realize that it is exactly these small amounts, combined all together that are the problem. These miniscule amounts are altering our DNA and making us ill.
Back to the interview from 09:
YOUNG: How low are we talking about?
MYERS: We’re talking parts per trillion to parts per billion to low parts per million.

YOUNG: And this is not even in the area where the safety system is designed to look.
MYERS: The safety system is not designed to look there. It starts at parts per thousand and rarely gets to low parts per million and never gets to parts per billion.
YOUNG: So we’ve all heard the phrase “the dose is the poison.” And that really is the assumption that a lot of toxicology is working on.
MYERS: It’s an assumption that’s been around since the 16th century. It was based upon work by a guy named Paracelsus in Switzerland. And the way the tests work today is we think that by testing at high doses we’re gonna see everything. So that once we get to a dose that’s intermediate and we don’t see anything, we’re golden.
But the science is telling us that at really low doses as contaminants mimic hormones. They can have effects that are totally unpredictable by what happens at high doses. And now we’re watching as toxicology is overturned by new science from endocrinology. Endocrinology is the study of hormones and its only because endocrinologists brought their skills and knowledge into this field and began asking these new questions that we began seeing the results like this beginning about a dozen years ago.
Considering this interview is from 09- Myers is informing us all that this endocrine affect has been known since the late '90's
YOUNG: So it’s emerging science, but it’s not brand spanking new. Why haven’t we been looking for this sort of response when we’re trying to determine whether or not a substance is safe?
MYERS: I should emphasize that it’s not even close to brand spanking new. It’s solid in endocrinology. This is something that physicians have to structure their drug deliveries around. They know that at low doses you can cause effects that don’t happen at high doses. In fact, you can cause the opposite effect.
And the best example of that is a compound called Tamoxifen that’s used by physicians to cure breast cancer. It works at high doses to suppress the growth of the breast cancer tumor. That’s exactly what you want it to do. But at a level about a million fold beneath that toxic dose, it turns on genes that are responsive to estrogens and causes to breast tumor to grow. And if you only to the classic experiments of high doses until you don’t find and effect, you miss this.
So, let's talk about that highlighted bit above? This is NOT new science. This is in point of fact, old known science. This is the science that big pharma would/should be engaging in, and likely covering up, when testing and recommending dosages etc- Their science would revolve around the endocrine systems ability to deliver drugs to a patient.
YOUNG: And are we beginning to see that that’s happening, that the findings from endocrinology are indeed being put to work in our safety system?
MYERS: Well, not yet. There’s a battle underway today over bispenol A. The low dose experiments say it’s risky and we shouldn’t be using it with food products. But to date the agency reviews of bisphenol A have basically depended upon traditional high dose experiments by contract laboratories, and have not been willing to pay attention to the low dose studies published by academic scientists doing this new research.
Another endocrine disrupting compound that has been shown to have these different effects at low doses than at high doses are some of the phthalates, a common plasticizer added to plastic to make it pliable and soft. This fascinating work showing that at really low doses phthalates alter our responsiveness to allergens. They make us hyper allergic. So the standard tests that are used to assess toxicity don’t even begin to tell you about this effect of phthalates.
Phalates are a group of chemicals used to make plastics pliable. (Courtesy of Breast Cancer Fund)
Interestingly, we know that people today are experiencing increasing frequency of allergic diseases like asthma and like allergies. And now we’re seeing that one possible mechanism of it could be our exposures to phthalates.

YOUNG: So maybe that gives us some insight into why the bisphenol A issue is so hard fought. It’s about more than just BPA.
MYERS: It is about more than just BPA. BPA itself is a big deal. You do the calculation and it’s worth about $800,000 an hour. You can buy a lot of lawyers to defend your product with $800,000 an hour in revenue. But BPA is the poster child of this low dose debate. And if BPA is regulated based on low dose effects, it explicitly acknowledges that the regulatory system has been blind to these types of effects. And BPA is not the only one that’s gonna have to be re-examined.
Ok? BPA and BPS- That was covered here at the blog- BPA has been removed in a few countries, in a limited manner- The move was a bait and switch. The consumer was informed they were having a toxin removed- Petrochemical BPA- Only to  have it replaced with equally toxic petrochemical BPS

Fetal Brain Damage via Bisphenol S- The “safe” Alternative

Back to the interview!

YOUNG: Now EPA has been taking some steps in this direction. Give me an assessment of what the environmental protection agency’s been doing in terms of these endocrine disrupting chemicals?
MYERS: Very little. There’s a program that’s been underway mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 that instructed the EPA to develop testing and screening criteria for endocrine disrupting compounds. And just this past year, it identified candidates to measure. Congress actually expected them to be measuring these things within a few years and here we are 13 years after the passage of that act and EPA has just identified what candidates they should look at. And it’s a small incomplete list.
So, in 2009, at the time of the interview the EPA had been dragging it's collective feet for 13 years already- taking us back to the late '90's- How are you all liking your years and years of petrochemical poisoning? ( I'm not and have made changes in my life to address these toxins as much as I possibly can) The signs, as I have said repeatedly, are all around us- Cancer. Diabetes. Asthma. Deformed babies. Gender bending people. Plummeting birth rates. Breast Cancer increases. Prostrate Cancer increasing- and on and on.
YOUNG: That's Dr. Pete Myers, CEO and chief scientist of the non-profit Environmental Health Sciences – that paper on endocrine disrupting chemicals is at our website,

You should read/save/pass along this report ! Click here to read Pete Myers’ paper on the importance of low-dose testing.

For more on Pete Myers and Environmental Health Sciences, click here. 

 Do you expect there will be a big mind control psyop concert for this legitimate environmental- life destroying crisis? I don't expect so.  Nor do I wonder, why.


  1. Yesterday the biggest spy scandal in Canadian history was 'reported' on by corporate media. Most of the spying is really done on Canadians, not foreigners.
    Nobody gives a flying fcuk.


      Canada too, will spy on citizens.
      It hasn't been about terrorism in the US, it has been about monitoring the citizens.
      As we have seen in the US, we will see in Canada.

      Court ruling may clear the way for more digital surveillance

      "This is an important and overdue piece of legislation. We're dealing with intercept legislation that has been around since the '70s, and every Canadian knows how technology has changed since then," said Pecknold, who is also a deputy chief with the Central Saanich Police Service in British Columbia.


      Fintrac is back. In the news that is. If your wondering, what the heck is Fintrac?
      I wondered that also in this earlier post.

      Banking Probes may violate privacy

      Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart is saying Fintrac may violate anyone's privacy, anyone at all. Based on little more then an individuals ethnic background.

      “This is not an insignificant issue,” Ms. Stoddart said in her report. Canadian law requires banks, insurance firms and securities dealers, among others, to “scrutinize and report vast amounts of personal information.”

      Without proper controls to screen information, the agency keeps information beyond its authority from over-zealous institutions “on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion,” Ms. Stoddart said in the report.

    3. Likely more, but, I have covered privacy rights on numerous occasions

      The questions I would like to ask is what action will you take, what changes will you make, what lengths will you go to, to raise awareness and address this truly pathetic state of affairs?

      Not sure what is being said on line wrt this revelation? And you didn't really say much at all. Other then to say no one cares--- so you've thrown in the towel already, then? What do you expect from others when you appear to have given up?
      Is it frustration? I don't know?

    4. Here is another Canadian issue, bigger and obscured by stupid salacious news in our corporate media and curiously ignored by sites that should be much more interested.

      Please read that.

    5. Thanks so much for doing as you said and following up on the new Canadian legislation. oooops!

      Thanks so much for reading my link, as you did with several off topic (yet important subjects) comments from others on this thread.

      And thanks for your steadfast MO which proves to me beyond any doubt that you are nothing but a clever spook site which obviously has nothing to worry about when the new Harper crackdown occurs.
      You play for the same team. Sneaky diabolical scum.
      We the people haven't got a chance when up against the likes of you and your kind. Shame on you, all of you.

    6. You have been off topic the entire time- do you see what the topic of this post is?
      At least several others had the courtesy to stay on topic- You didn't
      But, I responded to you- my mistake- your a troll- your behaviour is troll like and you have wasted way too much of my time

      I can't please everyone all the time, and I am not going to even attempt to do that- I am not obliged to do so- The only one that should be ashamed is you- move along, now troll

  2. fyi- Canada has for so long been involved in international spying I am not sure that this so called snowden expose should come as a big surprise
    Think Echelon. Canada as one of the "5 eyes"

    The problem at this time is that people are making it so dam easy for governments to spy on them- through sheer stupidity and laziness and total complacency regarding their right to privacy.

    My ranting done, hoping someone has something to say about the latest installment of the Chemical Manipulation of Humanity?

    1. The "expose" asks people to look away from the real story.........massive spying on Canadian citizens and pretending that this is about foreigners.
      Yes people should do something about that raising the issue on blogs like this to help inform others or promote discussion.

    2. I've done my share and more. But notice you didn't offer up any suggestions other then to put the burden onto "blogs like this"-
      Is that pro active? Or is that wanting others to take care of this problem?
      I am not trying to be difficult- I am merely asking what your role is in this issue?

      I did see the anti-terror bill news and actually had it bookmarked, for today,
      You do realize I can't do it all, right?
      One person, in their spare time.

    3. Anonymous: when I post the anti-terror bill news, I expect that you will be the first to chime in with some proactive suggestions for our fellow Canadians- And I will appreciate it greatly, believe me, I am tired of repeating the same things over and over-

    4. I see what you do. Nice 'work'.
      I KNOW what I do, and am proud of my efforts. Your 'approval' means nothing to me, nor should mine to you. Just do the right thing for the right reasons, and hope it has some sort of positive impact.

    5. I see what you do. Nice 'work'.

      If you don't appreciate all my effort then hey pass on by and don't put your issues on me. I don't see your blog, I don't see your online effort- Never mind what I do in my real life- for the rights reasons-

      You passed the buck right off the hop and then you denigrate my time and effort to get info out?
      Start a blog and run it how ever you see fit and you'll get an idea of how much time and effort and work and reading it takes to run one
      Let me know when you get that blog going, ok?

  3. thanks for this one Penny! People are so funny ... they poo-poo 'holistic' health practices yet the proof is there that many compounds can have horrific effects in VERY low doses! As usual money talks and our health walks - right out the door. :(


    1. glad you enjoyed it buffy, I thought much was said in 7 short minutes!

    2. "As usual money talks and our health walks - right out the door. :( "

      In order for money to talk, as it does, our health HAS TO walk right out the door

    3. Indeed, money talks and the worse, people seem not be able to connect the dots. To give an example last week I had a heated debate with a friend on facebook about modern health stuff. The problem with this friend is that he is very smart, very knowledgeable etc. this makes him one of the worst falsers (un-truther ;-) ) around. He has a kid of blindness for the obvious that is fascinating. The discussion we had was about a link he shared on facebook of one of his favorite sites a "skeptic" site of the Michael Shermer kind (i.e. corporate propaganda hiding as scientific inquiry). It was again a link about homeopathy. Homeopathy is bullshit, there is no doubt about that, but these sites and my friend, think that it is a real bug problem in real world, that it's a very dangerous scam etc. My take on the discussion was "forget about homeopathy, it's only marginal big-pharma and medicine is where the harm is done".
      But as my friend is a little bit annoying because he requires real data but responds generally only with fallacies, I made the effort to evaluate with numbers the difference in size of big pharma with big-homeopathy. The result was as follow:
      Biggest homeopathy company = Boiron of France ~ 600 million dollars a year of revenue.
      biggest pharma companies = the 43rd in the list has ~1500 million dollars a year of revenue.
      If you make the sum of the 43 in wikipedia ~600 billion.

      This means Big parma is 1000 times bigger and therefore 1000 times more dangerous.

    4. Hi Gallier

      Yah, I don't understand why people can't understand what is sooo obvious and in their face and yet sometimes I think.. Is this why they can't see it, cause it is just so obvious?
      Clearly big, big pharma which is so huge and invasive in our lives is going to be a source of bigger more problematic issues

      Sometimes I wonder does the obviousness just blind people?

  4. nov 2013 Ukraine deputy tells parliament US embassy orchestrating civil war

  5. Thanks very much for this Pen. Keep your chin up . . . know that you affect many of our lives through the giving of information which can sometimes be so vital and helpful, for everyday life even.

    For parents with newborns, that would mean understanding that ONLY GLASS BOTTLES are safe. Try not to microwave to heat up, do it in a pot. And not a pot with the no-stick lining, that's poisonous once it i starts getting the tiniest of scratches, which they inevitably do. The health of our children is precious, give them the best start you can. And obviously, breast feed for as long as you can. Get unpasteurised cow's milk if possible afterward. Etc.

    It all takes hard work . . . and way more effort. But you will have zero regrets, and zero rationalisations to generate for yourself like most of the masses do. And you can always help educate.

    Thanks again Pen, and keep up the good fight.

    1. Thanks slozo
      Yes, glass bottles are safe- No microwaving- No teflon coated pans
      Agreed, it is more effort- though when I had my daughter there were only glass bottles pretty much, that's what I used- I have never been a big fan of prepackaged - and we have always had our own garden
      since I have started this series I have made more changes still -
      gone are the plastic water bottles- though I will keep some on hand for emergency- got some stainless to carry my water in when we are hiking or biking- am cutting back on store bought phalate toxic lotions and am using coconut oil- on my to do list is- make my own soap- as soon as the weather is nicer- want to do it outside
      and going to buy a better water filtration system-
      I am glad you are appreciating this series and my chin is always up :)

  6. More Americans shot in Saudi Arabia

    A day after the King purges Abdullahs sons form their ranks

    The governor of Mecca and the governor of the capital Riyadh were replaced as were several senior religious officials.

    Which of course begs the question again what was Abdullah son doing in DC a week or so before his death?

    As noted here for quite some time during Abdullah living years, the new "popupmedia" middleeasteye has Nayef as the kingmaker

    Mohammed bin Nayef kingpin in new Saudi Arabia: country experts - See more at:

    Now the question: is that a good thing for NATO relations? Considering the GCC breakout moves Saudi pushed under the old King, expect acceleration. That would fix oil prices (shale complex) rather quickly.

    Curiously the latest American deaths occurred in the east...

    1. thanks- gotta get some work done then I will be back to check links

  7. Teen who stormed Dutch TV NOS fascinated with conspiracy theories, say ex-classmates. "In recent years he was interested in conspiracy theories involving the Free Masons and a 'new world order',"

    and the link

  8. *Liberia may only have five Ebola patients left, but GSK is still planning to fast track its vaccine prog on the populace*

    1. I had some stuff about the Ebola bookmarked and the amazing reduction in cases sans vaccine- not a surprise