|
by Mark Sircus
Director
22 June 2012
from
IMVA Website
Dr.
Garry F. Gordon, who is
considered the “father of
chelation therapy,” thinks so, going so
far as to say in a June 08, 2012 email to his
FACT discussion group
subscribers,
“I have not been too concerned about
the increased low-level exposure most of us might receive due to
the nuclear power issues in Japan.
I do not see a need to add anything
to my
personal program that is posted on my website just because
there is some increase in low-level radiation exposure following
the Japan nuclear power incident.”
Claudia French, RN (retired), the
assistant director of the IMVA, wrote to me saying,
“I was simply taken aback with shock
when I saw this from the man who, above all else, warns us that
toxicities are our daily companions and that we must constantly
chelate to prevent the harm coming from these!
Not to be worried about
radiation
from Fukushima due to
hormesis (our bodies adapting to and
automatically up regulating production of life-saving
antioxidants) seemed in total opposition to what he has preached
about lead and mercury… feeling that these heavy metals are
harder to fight against than radiation?”
Claudia said,
“He’s 77 years old now, and maybe if
someone has been following his personal protocol for many years
they might be more immune to the radiation than normal people,
just like those of us who are up to par on iodine in our bodies
won’t be so affected by I-131 radiation… but he seems to totally
dismiss the common folk… in this recent email.”
His protocol of supplementation
reportedly costs about $1,000 a month. Few can afford that!
Dr. Gordon is barking up the wrong tree when he asks,
“Does low-dose radiation have a
‘hormesis’ effect whereby the body upregulates protective
mechanisms for which the expected adverse effects are
compensated?”
Pointing to an article that suggests
that
glutathione is upregulated to deal with increased oxidative
loads and using this point to suggest there’s no need to worry about
heavy nucleotide particles is way off the scientific path.
Gordon said,
“The body is less able to
accommodate heavy metals from coal-burning power plants
aggravated by dental fillings, GMO foods, vaccines, total burden
of toxins and pathogens” than to the radiation coming from
Japan.
Sorry Gordon but you are swinging away
from medical truth.
Radioactive heavy metal particles are
dangerous and of course nothing can compete with the toxicity of
plutonium. There is enough plutonium in Japan to kill every person
on this planet 10,000 times over and plenty of that was at
Fukushima.
I would like to direct your and everyone’s attention to the
teachings of Dr. Boyd Haley and some other heavyweight
scientists who have already weighed in on this very important issue.
Radiation at
Extremely Low Levels
It is the inability to see the
effects of chronic,
low-level toxicities on human health that has been,
and remains, our greatest failing as intelligent beings.
Dr. Boyd Haley
The medical profession as well as the
public must wake up to what Dr. Haley said many years ago.
His warning to the world’s scientists
and doctors has mostly gone unnoticed, meaning we are left with a
government, medical officials and doctors who have no idea of the
real dangers all of humanity is facing as an entire nuclear plant
with six reactors is abandoned (too hot to enter) and goes
dangerously out of control.
In July of 2005 the National Academy of Sciences came to the
conclusion that the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that
even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other
health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can
be viewed as harmless.[1]
Many scientists generally assumed that
low levels of radiation are harmless since they produced no
immediately observable effects.
However during the past few decades tremendously improved radiation
measurement techniques, coupled with detailed laboratory studies,
revealed many previously unsuspected hazards from low levels of
ionized radiation. Some researchers have even added the view that
chronic low-level exposure to radiation poses a greater risk than
short-term high-level exposure.[2]
It was Dr. John Gofman [3] who promoted a linear
no-threshold model for the dangers of radiation, suggesting that
even small doses over time could prove harmful. His 1981 book,
Radiation and Human Health, expounded on this and gave prediction
tables for how much average life expectancy might be affected by
radiation.
He was professor emeritus of molecular
and cell biology at UC Berkeley, he worked on the Manhattan Project
on uranium effects, and he established the Biomedical Research
Division for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.[4]
His 1990 book says that “by any
reasonable standard of biomedical proof” there is no threshold level
(no harmless dose) of ionizing radiation with respect to radiation
mutagenesis and carcinogenesis - a conclusion supported in 1995 by a
government-funded radiation committee.
His 1995/96 book provides evidence that
medical radiation is a co-actor in about 75% of the recent and
current breast cancer incidences.
“The results of surveys and
biological monitoring of children and adults of Chernobyl point
unambiguously to a steady, rapid and dramatic deterioration of
health of all victims of the radiation impact of the Chernobyl
accident,” wrote Drs. E. B. Burlakova and A. G. Nazarov of the
Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics, Russian Academy of
Sciences, Moscow.[5]
Most interestingly they go on to say,
“The dose dependence of the
radiation effect may be non-linear, non-monotonic and polymodal
in character. Over certain dose ranges, low-level irradiation is
more devastating with regard to the results of its action on an
organism or a population than acute high-level radiation.”
Dr.
Ernest J. Sternglass,
professor emeritus of radiation physics at the University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in his book, Secret Fallout -
Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima To Three-Mile Island,
indicated that the risk increased with each additional picture, as
the studies of
Alice Stewart indicated it did.
This clearly implied that there was no
significant healing of the damage and thus that the cancer-causing
effects of radiation were cumulative.[6]
The geographic patterns of the changes
in worldwide
leukemia and infant mortality trends between 1945
and 1955 clearly matched the patterns of fallout.
Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass
What few doctors and health officials
recognize is that chemicals and radiation combine to act on the very
same cellular enzyme pathways.
One type of contamination reinforces and
strengthens the others so medical treatments need to address both
chemical toxicity and radiation poisoning simultaneously.
Exposure to radiation causes a cascade of free radicals that wreak
havoc on the body. Radiation also decimates the body’s supply of
glutathione, which allows free radicals to run rampant through our
body’s tissues and organs.
Though there might be some kind of
hormesis effect with an uptick of glutathione body defenses, it is
vital to understand that glutathione levels cannot be sustained
without all the precursors being supplied - namely selenium,
magnesium and sulfur.
The International Commission on
Radiation Protection [ICRP]
exists in practice largely to play down the effects of radiation
on human health, and to shield the nuclear industry
from compensation claims from the public.
Dr. Gordon we do not need anyone to go
around being a mouthpiece for this insanity.
To basic science, all radiation is
dangerous and life-threatening though of course we do need the sun’s
radiation and even the background radiation from the universe to
support healthy life down here on earth.
But according to modern medicine and the
United States government there is nothing to worry about - radiation
and heavy metals both are as safe as mother’s milk and that’s why
dentists feel free to put mercury in people’s mouths and
pediatricians feel it’s okay to inject mercury via vaccines directly
into babies’ bloodstreams.
Dr. Gordon wrote saying,
“Have you any access to the PBS
documentary about the wolves over-running Chernobyl who have
high reactivity but are entirely normal and healthy and did you
know that there is a 900-pound fish in the pool at Chernobyl?
This documentary did not set out to
claim all is well; they just show you exactly how things are
today at this abandoned facility and its surrounding areas.
Did you know that atomic energy
personnel exposed by accident to very high levels of radiation
who for a while had no sperm later on had all sperm counts
return and they had normal children?”
Garry I even know of a group of women
who went back to live in the shadow of Chernobyl and they are doing
pretty good. I also have read that childhood death rates are obscene
and that they want to build lots more nuclear reactors no matter how
dangerous they are over the long haul.
The paper you pointed to in your email suggested that,
“Biochemical changes in response to
radiation exposure among a small group of interventional
cardiologists suggests that individuals might adapt to low doses
of radiation by upregulating several processes, leading to the
release of antioxidants and cellular apoptosis via higher levels
of caspase-3 activity in the lymphocytes.”
We are not surprised to hear these
researchers find that oxidative stress is actively countered by the
body, which will stop at nothing to defend its own best interests.
It will cannibalize scarce body
resources to increase antioxidant response. The body of a being who
has a strong will to live will rise to the occasion if their body is
provided the basic resources of organic sulfur, magnesium, iodine,
selenium, as well as bicarbonate, to ease everything along.
The strength of the cells’ adaptive capacity is directly related to
nutritional sufficiency and proper cellular respiration that removes
toxins and wastes through the cell wall. There is no secret or
mysterious “hormesis” effect that should pacify us into relaxation
about nuclear and heavy-metal contamination!
Cells can respond to stress in various ways ranging from the
activation of survival pathways to the initiation of cell death that
eventually eliminates damaged cells. Whether cells mount a
protective or destructive stress response depends on different
factors, but the most important is nutritional status.
Bicarbonate deficiencies are also a key
factor as is dehydration and the intake of compromised water
(fluoride and chlorine) and or polluted air.
A large part of my work since Fukushima has been to put together the
strongest protocol for radiation and heavy metal exposure. Both
radioactive particles and heavy metals have the same or similar
chemical toxicities.
There are plenty of basic substances
like magnesium, sulfur, sodium bicarbonate and iodine, not to
mention medical marijuana, selenium and clay that are not on your
personal list (and the magnesium in your protocol is too little and
in the wrong form). These items should be on everyone’s list as
inexpensive top-priority items for heavy metals and nuclear
particles that must be neutralized if at all possible.
I think you have the trust of many doctors around the world as you
have had my trust.
You have said that I am one of the best
health writers/researchers alive and I have said you are one of the
most brilliant doctors on earth and these statements have been on my
IMVA Publications site for years. I hope you can receive this
feedback because you have important responsibilities to your
readership.
Yes your protocol is excellent, even for radiation exposure, but you
do not have the authority or the science behind you to belittle the
threat.
And about six billion people cannot
afford your expensive protocol, so you are not covering the needs of
humanity and you’re certainly not honing in on the radioactive
iodine issue when you say you are not worried about radiation from
Japan.
Special Note: To
his great credit, my colleague Dr. Garry Gordon previewed this essay
and he gave blessings that it should go out as written saying,
“Controversy is good.” Actually it is wonderful to get his
perspective for it gives us hope that if one takes care of oneself
properly one stands an excellent chance of surviving the heavy
metal, chemical and radioactive toxicities that are higher now than
ever before on our planet. Dr. Gordon says, “We all must fight in
order to maintain optimal health."
Dr. Gordon has extensive experience and to his own satisfaction has
concluded that the body will recover from heavy metal and radiation
insults if one goes through intensive detoxification and nutritional
programs like his own.
This does not mean we are not facing
serious health challenges from toxic exposure but it does mean we
are a strong race and can recover from much if given the chance.
In terms of what we should have been worrying about all along in
terms of heavy metal contamination consider these facts:
Each year in the U.S. an estimated
40 tons of mercury are used to prepare mercury-amalgam dental
restorations. Scientific studies have concluded that the amalgam
is the source for more than two-thirds of the mercury in our
human population.
Mercury from amalgam fillings has been
shown to be neurotoxic,
embryotoxic, mutagenic, teratogenic, immunotoxic and clastogenic.
It is capable of causing immune dysfunction and autoimmune diseases.
Dr. Robert Gammal
And thousands of tons of mercury are put
into the atmosphere each year from coal-burning energy plants as
well as crematoriums, municipal and hospital incinerators.
Endnotes
[1] The linear no threshold model or
LNTM is a model of damage done by radiation. This model assumes
that the response to radiation exposure is linear and that this
linear relationship continues to very small doses, that is to
say that there is no threshold of exposure below which the
response ceases to be linear. When it comes to radiation, if a
particular dose of radiation is found to produce one extra case
of a type of cancer in every thousand people exposed, the LNTM
predicts that one thousandth of this dose will produce one extra
case in every million people so exposed, and that one millionth
of this dose will produce one extra case in every billion
people.
[2] The Petkau effect: discovered by Abram Petkau at the Atomic
Energy of Canada Ltd. Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment,
Manitoba, Canada in 1972 Dr. Petkau discovered that at 26 rads
per minute (fast-dose rate) it required a total dose of 3,500
rads to destroy a cell membrane. However, at 0.001 rad per
minute (slow-dose rate), it required only 0.7 rad to destroy the
cell membrane. The mechanism at the slow-dose rate is the
production of free radicals of oxygen (O2 with a negative
electrical charge) by the ionizing effect of the radiation. The
sparsely distributed free radicals generated at the slow-dose
rate have a better probability of reaching and reacting with the
cell wall than do the densely crowded free radicals produced by
fast-dose rates.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gofman
[4] Dr. Gofman established the Biomedical Research Division for
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1963. In 1964 he
raised questions about a lack of data on low-level radiation and
proposed a wide-ranging study of exposure in medicine and the
workplace at a symposium for nuclear scientists and engineers.
This helped start a national inquiry into the safety of atomic
power.
[5] ECRR: Chernobyl 20 Years On; chapter 2;
http://www.progettohumus.it/include/chernobyl/dintorni/dossier/chernobylbook.pdf
[6] Sternglass, Ernest. Secret Fallout - Low-Level Radiation
From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island. McGraw-Hill Book Company
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/SecretFallout/
|