| Time | Text |
|---|---|
|
Tests Positive Deception
00:08:38
|
|
| All right, this is a preview announcement about what I have come to decide is a real deception in science, and I need to go public with this. | |
| I'm going to do a full video about it, but this is just kind of a preview podcast, and it concerns the issue of an independent nonprofit laboratory out there reporting that certain foods are testing, quote, positive for arsenic. | |
| And I don't remember the name of this group. | |
| It's like the food clean labels or food labels or green labels or something. | |
| And I understand they're trying to do a good thing by raising awareness about arsenic. | |
| But to say that a food test positive for arsenic, I've thought about this a lot. | |
| And I've talked with my colleagues in my laboratory. | |
| And we all agree that such a statement is extremely deceptive and total quack science. | |
| Why is that? | |
| Well, the word positive means that it contains at least one element of that when you're talking about an element or one atom of it. | |
| And the word positive is deceptive in that context because positive is usually used for testing athletes for drugs, for example, or other similar uses where there is a specific compound drug that is often a synthetic molecule. | |
| It's not an element. | |
| It's a molecule. | |
| So it's made up of many elements, and it's a synthetic molecule with a very specific pharmacological purpose. | |
| And you can say that an athlete tests positive for a, let's say, a performance-enhancing drug. | |
| That makes sense in that context. | |
| But to say that a food tests positive for arsenic does not make sense because there is at least one atom of arsenic in every piece of food everywhere. | |
| And thus, everything tests positive for arsenic. | |
| In other words, it's total junk science to claim that, in their case, baby food tests positive for arsenic. | |
| Well, of course baby food tests positive for arsenic. | |
| So do watermelons. | |
| So do grapes. | |
| So do oranges. | |
| So does your hair, by the way. | |
| There's arsenic in your hair, I guarantee you. | |
| And if you have a sensitive enough heavy metals instrument, you can see it. | |
| And we do run heavy metals analysis using ICP-MS, and I can detect arsenic below a part per billion, by the way. | |
| And as a result, I can find arsenic in almost everything. | |
| Does that mean everything tests positive for arsenic? | |
| Well, technically, yes, but that's why that term is scientific quackery when used with elements. | |
| That's very important for those of you who maybe aren't highly experienced in laboratory analysis, just to make sure you understand the difference between an element and a molecule. | |
| An element is something from the table of elements. | |
| It is atomic. | |
| It's an atomic unit of matter. | |
| It's the very basic building block Of matter until you get down to the subatomic particles, you know, quarks and all that. | |
| We're talking elements are things like aluminum or gold, silver, zinc, selenium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen. | |
| Hydrogen is an element. | |
| Now, you wouldn't say that, oh, this food tests positive for carbon. | |
| That would sound stupid because there's carbon in everything. | |
| You know, I mean, everything that's food. | |
| I guess you might say salt doesn't have carbon. | |
| And you might say salt is a food. | |
| So I guess there could be a few exceptions for inorganic crystalline lattice structures such as sodium chloride. | |
| But for common foods, you know, fruits and vegetables and things, everything has carbon in it. | |
| Almost everything that's a food has oxygen in it. | |
| Because oxygen is part of water. | |
| So water, you know, you wouldn't say, oh, we tested water and all this water tested positive for oxygen. | |
| No, because oxygen is part of water. | |
| So it doesn't make any sense to say that it tests positive for oxygen. | |
| You see what I'm saying? | |
| H2O, the O is oxygen. | |
| So when these labs, it's very important for all these science labs to To be accurate in what they are asserting here. | |
| And this is why when we have reported heavy metals results in the past, we have always, in every case, talked about the quantitation. | |
| In other words, the concentration of lead or mercury or arsenic or cadmium that's found in food because it's the concentration that determines the safety versus toxicity. | |
| Concentration is everything. | |
| And very high arsenic, yeah, can be dangerous to your health, especially depending on the form of arsenic, such as organic versus inorganic. | |
| However, a couple of atoms of arsenic, or a few molecules that contain arsenic as one of their atomic compounds, is of no concern whatsoever. | |
| Just like a few molecules of something containing lead, a very small number of molecules, parts per trillion concentrations of lead, or even low, low parts per billion, is not really a concern for food. | |
| Now, if you're injecting it, that's different. | |
| If you're injecting yourself with a vaccine that contains 50,000 parts per billion mercury, that's a problem. | |
| And that's what flu shots do contain, by the way, but that's a different discussion. | |
| That's vaccines. | |
| That's something you're practically mainlining in your tissues. | |
| We're talking about foods that contain trace amounts of arsenic or lead or cadmium or what have you. | |
| And again, it's just... | |
| You know, look, I'm a scientist. | |
| I run an ISO-accredited laboratory. | |
| There are very high demands on our accuracy and our honesty and scientific integrity in reporting what we report. | |
| And when I saw this other group reporting that baby foods test positive for arsenic, I immediately thought, you know, that's... | |
| I'm not gonna... | |
| That's BS. That's total BS. That's not a scientific statement. | |
| And, of course, the media bought it hook, line, and sinker because most journalists are, of course, scientifically illiterate. | |
| They don't know the difference. | |
| So they report, oh, this baby food is all testing positive for arsenic. | |
| Yeah, but how much arsenic? | |
| There's arsenic in everything. | |
| A little bit. | |
| You know, at least a few atoms. | |
| I can find arsenic in almost anything with a sensitive enough instrument. | |
| Even your breath. | |
| What you exhale, I guarantee you there are arsenic atoms in your exhalation. | |
| No question about it. | |
| Every breath you take, as the police used to sing, has arsenic in it. | |
| So does that mean you test positive for arsenic? | |
| Should you ban yourself because you test positive for it? | |
| No, it doesn't mean anything. | |
| Now, if you're going to eat something that is, you know, five parts per million arsenic, that could be a concern. | |
| But five parts per trillion is one billion times less. | |
| And so that's not a concern. | |
| So we have to be aware of these concentration differences. | |
| And I've always made it a point to report this And I made a mistake on reporting some findings for bone broth, which I quickly corrected because I reported that we had found some amounts of antibiotics and pesticides and so on, and then I saw the public overreacted to it. | |
| And very quickly, within a few days, I corrected that and put out a chart that said, no, these are trace levels because I don't want to give the wrong impression about foods or supplements or anything. | |
| I don't want people to mistakenly think that there are massive amounts of these things when it's really only a very trace amount that was actually detected. | |
| And I just hope that other labs would be as honest. | |
| You know, they can get a lot of press by raising a false flag alarm, basically. | |
| They could take any food off the shelf and say, oh, it tested positive for lead. | |
|
Basic Elements Explained
00:02:25
|
|
| But that doesn't mean anything, because lead is an element, not a chemical compound. | |
| There is a huge difference. | |
| And I guess it's because most of the public doesn't have a very good science education. | |
| So most people are not, you know, well-informed about the differences between an atom or an element versus a molecule or a chemical compound, let's say. | |
| So people don't know. | |
| What does testing positive for something mean? | |
| And maybe I should just do like a science lesson or something. | |
| I don't know. | |
| Maybe I should just do like sort of science 101. | |
| The physical stuff in your world is made out of this other stuff. | |
| Like everything that you know that's physical is made out of these elements. | |
| And mostly it's just, you know, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen. | |
| You know, just, it's not even usually that many elements. | |
| It's just all the same basic elements. | |
| It's like a handful of elements make up everything that you know. | |
| You know, from the clothes you wear, to your teeth, to your brain matter, the lipids coursing through your body, your blood, all these things. | |
| It's all made of the same basic stuff, about 20 elements. | |
| It's mostly about it. | |
| And yet, people, I don't know, people are confused about this subject, so I don't know. | |
| You know, I try to be accurate, I try to educate people about real science, and I try to report findings in food that are legitimately alarming. | |
| You know, when I see high mercury in some, you know, rice protein product, you know, I sound the alarm because mercury is very toxic at very low levels. | |
| But arsenic, to have like one atom of arsenic in some baby food, that's nothing. | |
| Or even to have parts per trillion in baby food, that's nothing. | |
| So, I don't know. | |
| I'll try to put out the most accurate information I can, but the public doesn't seem to have a good grasp on this yet. | |
| Maybe I'll keep educating people and see how this goes. | |
| Thanks for listening. | |
| This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, for naturalnews.com. | |