Dr. Andrea Love

speaker
239 appearances 2 recordings 2 series first heard Apr 2025 last heard May 2025

Dr. Andrea Love’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months
No recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment
The Checkup with Doctor Mike · Are Everyday Chemicals ACTUALLY Harming Your Health · 7 May 2025 podcast
Ich habe eigentlich nichts davon gesagt. So when you're talking about chemicals, you have to parse them out, right? You can't say, oh, well, this herbicide that acts on this plant enzyme is and BPA and parabens and, you know, whatever other chemical. We're going to lump them all into the same category and say, well, we're just going to add up all these levels.
This is exactly what the environmental working group does when they create their organization, by the way, EDG. EWG ist eine der größten Antiscience-Organisationen auf der Welt. Und sie haben tatsächlich ein Antivakzinen-Studium in den frühen 2000ern veröffentlicht, das besagt, dass die Chemikalien und Vakzinen Autismus verursachen. Aber was die EWG macht, ist, dass sie sagen, okay, na gut.
These strawberries had five residues detected on them at parts per trillion, which each of them individually, because an herbicide is a very different chemical class than an insecticide or a fungicide. And that means that the way your body interacts with it is going to be wildly different because they all have different functional groups. They all have different chemical structures.
You can't just say, oh, well, I ingested all these chemicals and therefore they're all going to act synergistically because that's not how chemistry and biochemistry works. Aber was der EWG tut, ist, dass sie sagen, okay, well, this one was three parts per trillion, this one was 20 parts per trillion, this one was 40 parts per trillion.
They're all different classes of pesticides and all of them are a thousand fold lower than the safety threshold, which is already very conservative for these conventional pesticides. But because there were three of them or because there were four of them,
Wir sagen nur, dass es schmutzig ist, weil es vier verschiedene Pestizide-Residuen gibt, obwohl sie alle sehr unter den Sicherheitsabschlussen liegen und keiner von ihnen überhaupt einen Risiko für die Gesundheit hat. Und wir werden das Essen als schmutzig nennen.
Aber dieser andere, der nur eine Pestizide-Residue entdeckt hatte, und es war immer noch unter den Sicherheitsabschlussen, aber es war hundertfach unter den Sicherheitsabschlussen, immer noch sicher, immer noch völlig sicher, richtig? Aber es gab nur einen von ihnen. Dieser wird sauber sein, weil nur ein Chemikalus entdeckt wurde.
Das ist ihre Taktik, wenn none of those foods are harmful at all whatsoever. And so they scare people, particularly lower income people, away from eating conventional produce, which is cheaper, perfectly nutritious, perfectly safe and actually more ecologically beneficial because organic farming yields lower food products per acre. Because it's expensive to eat.
Es ist eigentlich nur 5% teurer, um zu wachsen, und es ist 32% teurer. Also es ist alles ein Profit-Margin.
They just pool, they just take the data that was already collected.
They call it contaminated. They use the phrase contaminated to scare people.
Also was bedeutet das? Die Europäische Sicherheitsorganisation, die FDA, die USDA.
Wir sprechen nicht über die Politiker. Wir sprechen nicht über die politischen Anwesenden. Wir sprechen über die Wissenschaftler und Toxikologie-Experten.
Sweating is not detoxifying. It's a temperature regulation feature of your body.
You can look at trace secretions, but that's not a detoxification practice. We've had this physiology for millions of years. But I want the answer to the EWG, whether she agrees with that assessment of how they assess risk, when... They're using the USDA Pesticides Residue Report, which, as I mentioned, doesn't include any of the organic pesticides.
So they're telling people that these are contaminated with conventional pesticides when they're not. They're all well below safety thresholds and those safety thresholds have a What does that mean?
And then they're going to bring it down another 1,000-fold to make it extra conservative. So you're saying that's your threshold for safety, which is extra conservative to account for high-risk individuals, right? Say pregnant people, young children, elderly, etc., right?
Und dann sagen diese Pestizide-Residue-Reporte, dass 99,9 Prozent aller Füße getestet werden und alle Pestizide, die beurteilt werden, unter diesen Sicherheitsniveaus liegen. Also gibt es keine Welt, in der diese konventionellen Produkte kontaminiert oder dreckig sind. Und diese Sprache ist intensiv furchtbar.
Ich bin interessiert. Nun, wenn es um die EWG geht, ist es intensiv, weil ihre Donorien große Organik-Färben sind.
Yeah, so it's, you know, the precautionary principle is an approach that certain organizations and political lobbyists or, you know, I mean, you see it in science as well, but basically it is kind of the difference between hazard and risk assessment. And so a hazard assessment is making a, or asking the question, is there a world in which
Showing 101–120 of 239 · page 6 of 12 ← Previous Next →