by Albert Y. Leung, PhD
For 150 years since the synthetic era began, we have been making countless chemicals from toxic petroleum, most of which are useless or unused and discarded to pollute our environment. Some of them eventually find their way into our body to do additional harm besides that from the drugs, additives, and supplements we have been brainwashed to routinely take indiscriminately. Over measly decades, these toxic chemicals have been ruining our environment and causing us our current state of poor health that not even millennia, or millions of years, of human existence and interaction with our surroundings have been able to do. Yet few of us have sounded the alarm!
Is it because most of us have to work so hard to make a living and have no time to protect ourselves or our environment, letting a handful of sociopaths grab most of our resources, hence wealth, ending up exploiting/enslaving the vast majority of our world population? Or can it be that we have learned to be nice to others and are too reluctant or complicit to disturb the status quo?
These exploiters of our less fortunate are driven by greed and have no compassion or conscience. They specialize in twisting the truth to suit their agenda, in politics and in science. Yet, because of their wealth, there is no lack of fortune seekers and businessmen who adore them, waiting for a chance to follow their path.
Here, I am only concentrating on the science of drug-therapy and the accompanying vicious cycle it has created. The latter has allowed our current confused state of faux science to exist, flourish, and perpetuate, ending up in the rapid deterioration of our environment and health, causing our fellow world citizens much pain and suffering. I’m going to try to summarize what I have written often on healthcare issues with drugs, herbs, and additives over the past 50 years. Unfortunately, most of the deleterious effects of these toxic chemicals are not readily visible (except obesity, puffy face, & unsteady gait, to name a few), making it more difficult to explain these effects to the general public.
1. The confusion of science in health care and its resultant vicious cycle. Health science does not have a uniform meaning. It all depends on the therapeutics used. The differences between using synthetic chemicals and natural ones in our health care vary greatly, from toxic to beneficial. The former, being largely made from toxic chemicals derived from petroleum, are brand-new to this planet and innately toxic. Because of this, when used in treating illnesses, they cause side effects and generate new diseases that require more new drugs to treat, in a vicious cycle. 461
Once in the vicious cycle, these synthetic chemicals overwhelmingly benefit the exploiters of human health, who are the ones with the resources and money, hence power, to steer the world to wherever they so desire. All the drug testing in vitro, in vivo, in animals, followed by clinical trials in humans are a sham, the reason being, after clinical trials (gold standards of modern drug therapy), the approved drugs still have to undergo the real trial-and-error process our ancestors started umpteen years ago to test our foods and traditional (herbal) medicines, and then passed their knowledge on to us. This is the ultimate process (human-testing) to prove our medicines are truly effective and safe in humans after centuries or millennia of use, not just safe in some cells (in vitro & in vivo) and animals for measly decades, tops. [See my paper, Manmade Evolution in Reverse – Where Drug Therapy Using Synthetic Psychedelics is Heading (www.ayslcorp.com/blog)].
Furthermore, in our healthcare sciences, we routinely mix up synthetic drugs, additives, and chemical supplements with natural healing herbs and foods. However, we concentrate instead mainly on the chemicals that are promptly synthesized, thus introducing the brand-new unknown and inherently toxic element not present in natural therapeutics. The impurities (usually 2%-5% approved by official Pharmacopoeias like the USP, BP & ChP) vary greatly among synthetics vs naturals. Those in the former, like approved drugs, are brand-new to us and require centuries or millennia before they can be proven safe, while naturals have been here with us since our human species first appeared on our planet eons ago. This simple fact has been ignored by my science colleagues since modern drug therapy, based on synthetics, began around 150 years ago. Because of this vicious cycle, created by greed, we have chosen to ignore its scourge in human health and continuously allow it to be a fountain of gold for makers of drugs or chemicals and their associates. At the same time, the toxicities of new drugs, along with their toxic impurities, are conveniently ignored.
2. Importance of purity or impurities in synthetic chemicals. If we neglect or ignore it, I don’t see how we can resolve any problems arising from our use of synthetics, including their side effects, new diseases, and pain and suffering endured by most people who ingest these chemicals, often unknowingly in their foods and drinks. Regardless, once we no longer confuse synthetics with naturals, we still have to heed the purity (or impurities) of the synthetics. Hence, a 1% of a highly toxic chemical present in the impurities of an approved synthetic drug, can definitely pose not just a health problem, but also raise a scientific/technical dilemma, especially even many of my well-known colleagues still insist health sciences meet standards of precision. Yet, for decades, I have observed this dilemma in our scientific endeavors whenever they involve our complex body and sometimes complex traditional medicines (herbs). Synthetic drugs are rarely absolutely pure (say, 100.000,000%), but usually around 98%. Hence, all synthetic chemicals by nature have an unknown or fuzzy element in them, which by nature is toxic or most likely so. How can we have precision in our science of drug therapy with this fuzzy test material (aka drug) that we have only encountered at most 150 years out of our human existence and experience of millions of years? Really? Don’t we want some of our top scientists to do some explaining? Statistics will not resolve this, nor measly weeks, months, or decades enough time to show our new synthetic drugs safe for us. The only solution is to add traditional medicines (herbs) embedded with millennia of human experience and wisdom to our new therapeutics (aka synthetic drugs). However, these cannot be added casually or nonchalantly. They have to be done with serious consideration and timing, not just continuing to misapply some human ingenuity that lacks common sense, as we have been doing for many decades!
I know I am right on this, because I have been on both sides of the synthetics/naturals (herbs) divide all my career and have experienced the good and the bad of both fields for at least 50 years and am still writing about them. I am very proud of this, because unlike some of my fellow herbalists or scientists (incl. surgeons turned herbal-supplement peddlers on TV), I have not sold out to either party, or compromised by sleazy financial interests to lie to promote my own products. Nevertheless, I feel sorry for them, especially their ignorance or innocence of being bamboozled by ‘herbs’ or ‘science’ that they don’t understand, ending up making well-known fools of themselves in the eyes of their peers.
Regardless, we can avoid or bypass synthetics, as we are now trying to do with our PBN Naturals (aka PBN Pearls) Worldwide Consortium. [https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ayleung852]. I can’t do this myself. So, please join us if you are a true herbalist, scientist, or simply agree with what I am doing.
3. Why impurities in synthetic chemicals can pose major health problems? Closely associated with the use of synthetic chemicals is the assumption that they are pure, with nothing else besides the titled or named chemical to account for its activities. However, a strong synthetic psychedelic like LSD (up to 200X stronger than psilocybin) may be present in any psychedelic to skew research and clinical results. How about other equally strong but highly toxic chemical(s)? Have there been any uniform standards for any synthetic psychedelics used in all recent research or clinical practice, as those reported in “Psychedelic Spotlight’s Week of October 23rd Roundup” for depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or others? I strongly suspect that in supplement research and clinical practice of synthetic psychedelics, there are no uniform standards for these synthetics, nor for mushrooms, apart from guessing. [See my article on my blog, www.ayslcorp.com/blog : Some Basic Requirements for the Identity and Quality of 3 Types of Psilocybin Products]. In the same week’s news highlight, DEA calls for the dramatic increases of psilocybin, psilocin, and ibogaine. Regardless, does DEA itself produce these chemicals or farm them out to the greed-based industry? But what are the uniform standards for these synthetic chemicals, the usual 98% pure, or 100.000% and higher? In the former, does anyone routinely analyze the 2% impurities for highly toxic chemicals? If not, don’t bring up the word “precision” or “precise” whenever we deal with health sciences! Also remember, we know a lot about our human body. But we still don’t know enough to keep acting as if we were the Creator, making decisions for our body as if it were a robot that we had built and could correct anything that went wrong with it.
The above are just a couple of my questions. Now that the goldrush for psychedelics is on, we can’t continue to go the way of synthetics, especially if our tax dollars are going to support such ‘fuzzy’ or faux research that is based on pseudoscience! Wake up, my young friends and colleagues! You are the ones inheriting this mess from us. But few of you seem to care. I do. Hence, I will continue to speak out!