There were 4 or 5 in my previous post; I'm not hiding anything.
have you studied the combined collection of all the so called safe chemicals and amounts in the human body? when you go to the Dr or pharmacy they ask all the time about what else you are taking and now they also ask what herbal or vitamin supplements you are taking as mixing them have bad results, the same would be making a cocktail of compounds in the human body...
As I do not research toxicity, no I have not studied it. Many others, however, have. There are massive on-going studies (Framingham study, as one example) which track disease incidence and risk factors over huge populations, which is exactly where we would see such combinatorial toxicity. And, as I mentioned in my first post, toxicity is very rarely additive; unless two compounds hit the same metabolic pathway, there is not an addative effect.
I do agree we live longer and die from what we use to die with, but im not convinced that is just natures way..growth hormones in our food
In my country there are no growth hormones in our foods (its illegal) and our life expectancy and patterns of major causes of mortality are identical to similar nations who allow them. 36 million people is a pretty large test group...
that are designed to make everything grow fast I feel does the same with all the bad cells in our body, so in simple forms the bad cells out perform the good cells and immune system, when I was in grade school most of the girls had flat chests, now..well I wish I was back in school along with enlarged organs and other issues that werent here before all the additives to food.
The mean age of puberty hasn't changed much...the more rapid increase in the breast size of women going through puberty has accelerated. That is related to obesity though, not chemicals, with BMI being a strong predictor of rates of breast growth in pubescent women.
again you keep telling us that whatever we hear on the internet is false
I never said everything is false, just a lot of it. There are powerful and wealthy sources pushing a lot of the anti-science agenda; organic food is controlled by a few small companies (WhiteWave, as one example), several of whom who have larger market shares than monsanto. And they spend huge money on negative, fact-free add campaigns to convince you that safe food is unsafe - all so that you'll buy their more expensive, but equally nutritious and safe (and arguably, less environmentally friendly) products. Anti-AGM is (or was) funded by big oil & big coal - again, because adapting to climate change costs them money. Anti-vax is driven by a number of charlatans who make big money off of book deals and alternative therapies. Etc, etc, etc. Accepting their claims unilaterally while ignoring the work of independent scientists, serves nothing more than to reinforce your own biases. It is as accurate as relying on monsanto for all you info on GMO food safety. If one company is suspect, then all shoudl be treated as suspect. You're not applying that standard.
I believe there is plenty of false info out there, but big business and big money run the world, so when you say big industry doesnt impact your studies then who finances your studies, where does your materials to study come from, big business has its hands into everything, so that is another factor of my mistrust in studies that favor big business..
I've told you who finances my studies - a mix of governments (tax dollars) and NGOs. And scientific grants are handed out by independent panels - I sit on many myself - where grants are funded on the basis of their scientific merit and feasibility alone. No "company men" sit on these panels, and the level of direction provided by the gov/NGO is minimal. For example, the heart foundation dictates that we only fund grants directly pertaining to cardiovascular disease; specific topics and research lines are not pre-determined. The gov panels require only that the grant fit the research mandate of the agency; basic science for NSERC, health for CIHR.
anti bacterial soaps have created super bugs like mersa, flesh eating disease and others that common antibiotics have a hard time fighting..
Again, your understanding of basic scientific facts has been mislead by your beliefs or sources. MERSA (which we study in my lab, btw) is not a result of triclosan, and most strains are triclosan sensitive at this time (thankfully). Flesh eating disease is not caused by a singular organism, and has been around for at least 7500 years (which is the oldest bones we've found to date with damage typical of the disease). Triclosan resistance does not impart resistance to antibiotics (and triclosan is not an antibiotic itself).
I look at many of the conspiracies as holding some truth
Name one.
I'm serious - name just one.
If you have to invent conspiracies to "confirm" your beliefs, you've given up on objectivity completely. Scientific conspiracy in the modern world is a near impossibility. Last week there was a perfect example of this - a group published a paper with falsified data claiming a link between autism and aluminium. It took 22 hours - yes, hours -
for the fraud to be uncovered by independent scientists reviewing the paper.
On a larger scale, Merck engaged in a conspiracy to hide the effect of vioxx, and spent
billions to do so. They created fake scientific journals to publish supportive studies in, paid people to ghost-write for them, and used the threat of litigation to silence people raising the alarm. All that money hid the truth for a whopping 4 months...
Reality is that there is simply too many independent scientists, and sufficient funding, for scientific conspiracies to survive for any length of time.
B