Chronic Ambient Poisoning

Preventive Cure

Chronic Ambient Poisoning (CAP) is an anthropogenic habitat injury that manifests in humans. Poisoning is continuous or recurrent with peaks of varying magnitude and produces signs and symptoms that may be disabling for years before the detection of any consequent final common pathway diseases. As a diagnosis, CAP thus moves the focus of research and intervention up the causal web from death and end-stage disease to primary causes. Thus, it enables preventive cure. Due to the diversity of poisons; the diversity of genes and their impacts on metabolism; the diversity of end organ effects resulting from the poisoning process; and the diversity of lifetime combined and cumulative dosages of various poison “cocktails,” each case must be defined and investigated with an “N-of-1” study in which suspected causes are eliminated for long periods in hopes of effecting detoxification and resultant recovery and cure

Chronic Exposure

With the ubiquitous dissemination of natural and synthetic chemicals and radiation that poison life and contribute to vitacide (e.g. extinction of evolved life), humans have developed new ailments analogous to those in other species such as birds, bees, amphibians, and insects[2]. Since the discovery of fire, and earlier, humans have been creating toxins that cause illness. One premodern example is nasopharyngeal cancer due to the combination of indoor smoky fires with Epstein-Barr virus exposure; another is lung disease, an occupational ailment of stonemasons, millers, bakers, coal miners, and others. The radical experiment of modernity[3] has led to many new chronic illnesses in workers[4], including: jaw cancer in women who painted clock hands with radium[5], testicular cancer in chimney sweeps[6], lung cancer and asbestos in dock workers[7] and cognitive delay in children due to lead paint[8].

Now that poisons have been disseminated through the wild and modified world[9], chronic and cumulative low-dose exposure is causing new kinds of ailments that cannot be comprehended within the modern worldview. These new hazards are also increasing rates of certain long-standing diagnoses. This applies to an unknown proportion of patients, perhaps especially those with disabling neurological conditions. Very little is known, partly because modern ideas and methods are integral to the problems of late modernity and thus unsuited for creating solutions[10]. Examples of this lack of traction include almost all studies to date of ME/CFS and of the health effects of non-ionizing radiation.

Diagnosis

All valid diagnosis is clinical, and therefore problematic with respect to a system that places uncertainty and ambiguity squarely in the Jungian shadow[11]—that is, that which we ignore. In the case of medicine, relegation to shadow entails referring patients to psychiatry for drugging that stops complaints. Doctors who are independent-minded, curious, and open may be better prepared to look into the shadows, in which case they will be stymied by constellations of symptoms that are not in the textbook and that make no sense within the modern frame. A clinically-derived causal model linked to etiopathogenesis, like the one presented here, can come only from the type of clinical research that has fallen out of favor and been quashed by false ideas of time efficiency (e.g. doing what is expected as quickly as possible while thinking as little as possible). This has led to formation of a largely invalid medical database that calls itself evidence-based but is not, as pointed out in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology by Ionnides and elaborated on by Aubrey Clayton in Bernoulli’s Fallacy. This means that doctors now ensconced as employees in systems that have turned them into technology managers are of little help to you as you dodge ubiquitous poisons.

The good news is that you can use my self-case study book, Everywhere Forever, which you can find on the post-civilization website, as a template for processes of self-care that allow you to become your own medical naturalist and so to discover what impacts you, regardless of what may impact others and what they consider to be proof. Your body is deterministic; math is only in the way as you find out how to care for your unique body as it has been poisoned in your unique life. You need not trouble yourself with outdated thinking from which statisticians cannot be expected to escape, and which mathematical models are far too simplistic to serve you or your doctor, assuming you can find one who has gone underground, and may be willing to at least try to help you.

The failures of modern methods that lie beyond misuse of and misinterpretations of data are astonishingly simple to see if you have not been indoctrinated into modern dogma wrongly called science. For one thing, very few doctors understand how to use Bayesian reasoning, and, beyond that, humans and other species use processes that Bayes’ theorem may approximate to a degree but are nothing to your inborn abilities as a naturalist, which you can learn to cultivate. With respect to forming an etiopathogenetic model, no one today other than myself (as far as I can discover) knows how to construct or to even read and reason based on such a model. So, there is no useful diagnostic gold standard[12][13] for any expression of the ambient poisoning to which all species are now subject from birth. There is thus no metric against which to evaluate potential biomarkers[14][15] as proxy diagnostic tests. Most can be expected to misclassify patients (who are entered into the database with whatever code is to hand, and can thus never be retrieved from it) and therefore have unknown and likely useless diagnostic utility[12][13]. David Sackett, the formulator of critical reading of the medical literature and of evidence-based medicine, as well as Thomas Chalmers, deviser of the meta-analysis, recommended in their wisdom years that doctors and patients work out together what is best for the patient without regard to studies that assume that all patients are alike, which is known by genetic epidemiologists to be untrue. If you are dependent for your psychological comfort on mathiness, you may be able to use the advice given by associates of David Sackett regarding the use of N-of-1 studies in cooperation with a doctor who self-labels as a clinical epidemiologist [16][17][18].

If you do not have access to my Everywhere Forever book, and you are able to decrypt the following diagrams, you can use the following to protect your body.

Determinants of Poison Dosage in Time

Key for Figure 1 (Image Above)

Ingestion of food, drink, and substances contaminated by man-made chemicals from sources such as: agricultural herbicides, pesticides, or genetically engineered toxin-producing organisms; animals husbanded with antibiotics, hormones or chemicals in their feed, dips, sprays, pastures, or structures; foods preserved or processed with chemicals; and foods contaminated in cooking, as through use of high-temperature oils.

Inhalation of air contaminants due to spontaneous or human-produced chemicals such as volcanic ash, smoky fires, or sulfur dioxide.

Penetration by non-ionizing radiation that may damage any or all biological processes, each likely in proportion to: cumulative dose at each wavelength summed across a specific range of wavelengths; peak exposures; and susceptibility factors such as prior poisoning by a “sick structure”.

Release of stored fat-soluble poisons with catabolism (e.g. between meals, overnight, prolonged physical activity, fasting, starvation, hyperthyroidism, etc.).

Circulation in blood and bodily fluids of levels that depend on intrinsic and extrinsic factors such as: genes and gene regulation; nutritional status; circulatory fitness; efficiency of excretion; recent exposure to inducers of gene expression such as alcohol, cigarettes, etc.; and past medical history (including intrauterine experiences).

Consequences of Chronic Ambient
Poisoning Over Time

Advice to Clincal Epidemiologists

The effects of ubiquitous exposures cannot be studied in the late modern way. Fortunately, the groundwork of emerging methods has already been laid for causal thinking, exposure assessment, outcome definition, and study design as well as self-patterning for discovery, as noted below. A return to the Natural History and Philosophy of medicine engineered out of medicine since the the 1970’s is essential to constructing new actionable diagnoses, as per above. It is also necessary to cooperate with patients to formulate one or more new diagnoses to study with them, but be careful: you may be railroaded out of medicine by dogmatists (particularly doctors of infectious disease) who deny environmental illness), as happened to Dr. Grace Kiem of Johns Hopkins for putting her patients first and studying the construct Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which diagnosis is better encompassed in CAP as involving lifetime exposures and loss of tolerance to alien, human-disseminated poisons (that is, it is better to drop the term sensitivities as any genetic profile will alter the expression of poisoning and its consequences regardless of symptomatology.

Modern Failures to Advance Causal Thinking

The context of epidemiology and public health practice is reasonably well-developed for infectious disease and in need of development for chronic illness. The incorporation of ecological frames by Mervyn Susser[19], with a historical perspective, revealed the complexity of useful causal thinking for this purpose, but his reliance on statistical modeling for the complex study of exposures with diverse metabolic consequences requires a body of clinical research that has ceased to develop. Computational models with one or two “main effects” and perhaps one “interaction” may work for overwhelming causal factors, such as smoking and coal mining in lung cancer, but are too simplistic to elucidate causal webs in daily life[10][20]. A quick comparison between the Krebs cycle, the electron transport chain, or the life cycle of Plasmodium falciparum and the average policy-oriented either/or statistical model will reveal that the latter is far too blunt an instrument to probe the unknown in intricate, dynamic biological systems that are active from the date of conception and before. Note that even the very simplest causal model includes agent, host, and environment, each of which is too complex for any simplistic model. In sum, data cannot yield solutions when problems demand knowledge and wisdom born of carefully-observed experience in vivo and in situ in free-living populations.

Assessment of Complex and Ubiquitous Exposures

While technology continues to dazzle[21], the thinking behind assessment for the purposes of health studies does not, especially with regard to non-ionizing radiation. Many investigators rely on electricians and other technicians who lack knowledge of biology and do the best they can with what they have. When investigators lack comprehension of etiopathogenesis and/or fail to comprehend physics, it is no surprise that studies of electromagnetism and its health effects ignore key questions of dosages and consequences[22]. Patients turn to the construction industry for protection, and contractors rely on products. Such solutions are decontextualized from biological reality as evolved prior to late modernity, and thus from the human body and from the as-yet barely considered body of life and its earthly substrates[23][24]. A Cal Tech study on the impact of geomagnetic fields illustrates the kinds of skills needed to assess the impact of the earth on humans.

In assessing chronic exposure as a cause of chronic illness, the brief catastrophic exposure that may be recognized by doctors of occupational medicine is unlikely to be missed by them, or to account for many cases of emerging conditions. That pattern of chronic exposure and consequences—such as the failure of tolerance[25] illustrated above, and the body of experiential learning assembled by building “biologists” and by the community at Greenbank[26][27]—point to doses of radiation varying by patterns of frequency and power over time, with lifetime effects cumulating, combining, and/or interacting with other sources of poison as well as with metabolic factors.

Metabolic factors and conventional food from distant sources[28] may have the greatest impacts on outcome, and so obscure the effects of radiation. Also important are failures of tolerance, pre-natal and early childhood exposures[29], microbiome effects[30][31][32], and the poison “cocktail,” its metabolites, and rates of absorption/production relative to rates of excretion and recovery. In sum, route, source, or other narrow exposure assessments are likely to miss effects regardless of how long or large or sophisticated the associated data collection may be[33][34][35][36][37]. Assessment should include all routes of exposure:

Ingestion of conventional foods that include a variety of poisons, or contaminated organic food;
Ingestion of unclean water (e.g. poisoned well or surface water);
Inhalation of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants, especially in combination with allergens;
Penetration by non-ionizing radiation in the electromagnetic range; and/or
Absorption of household or workplace chemicals through the skin or other routes.

Note that because the dissemination of poisons has made them virtually ubiquitous, there is no normal—that is, no unexposed group—for comparison in any study. Only elimination studies can be effective. Note also that recovery takes years, not days.

Outcome Definition

Cases of the emerging epidemics, especially ME/CFS (now subsumed by CAP), are notoriously difficult to count as they may present differently depending on poison cocktail, metabolism of poisons, end-organ sensitivity, and loss of tolerance. As per Ziem and McTanney[25], “multiple overlapping disorders” relate to a wide spectrum of poisons and a variety of process of “injury” such as: “neurogenic inflammation,” “kindling and time-dependent sensitization”, “impaired porphyrin metabolism” and “immune activation.” Given the repurposing of neurotoxic agents of biological warfare for application to crops and the widespread contamination of croplands and foods, neurotoxicity and related injury to organ function and structure begs examination. However, there is no reason to believe that cancer, obesity, cirrhosis, and other end-stage diseases are not catalyzed by chemical exposures. Self-report and clinical diagnosis with case series and N-of-1 interventions to arrest or reverse damage should be offered without delay. Note that there is no gold standard that can be used to form treatment groups for study, and there may never be one.