This is a question that researchers have been asking for decades and the answer (according to them) has always been “yes”. Today i’m going to show you why the dose doesn’t actually matter. Lets start by taking a look at the graphs below. And this is HUGE for understanding breast implant illness and why we need to detox from all those toxins we are exposed to with breast implants inside us.
Graph 1 and 2:
If you look at the graph on the left: the “X” axis is the increasing dose of a given toxin. On the “Y” axis is the % of individuals (rats) that are responding negatively in a physiological way. So this graph shows that the more exposure to a toxin, the more individuals are going to responds negatively to it. Easy enough.
If you look at the graph on the right hand side you’ll see the NOAEL (No-Observable-Adverse-Effect-Level). At this dose, none of the individuals (rats) experienced problems. But then you go up a little bit, at about 20mg/kg body weight, and we see the LOAEL (Lowest-Observable-Adverse-Effect-Level). This is the smallest dose of the toxin given at which they started to see a negative response.
This graph below on the right-hand side is the same curve that we were just looking at above: we have the NOAEL and the LOAEL plotted on this graph.
Graph 1 and 3:
But if you add the other half of the graph, as seen below, this is what they found: It’s called the non-monotonic dose-response curve (NMDR). I want you to really think about this. What we saw in graph 3 is what they use to evaluate what is toxic for humans and what is not. What they are determining now is the very bottom of the curve was their starting point before, but if they go even lower (the left side of the bottom of the curve), the lower doses are as toxic as really high doses. They are exactly the same in the body.
Graph 1 and 4:
This response in the toxicology world hasn’t gone over very well. They’re now saying that they used to think that tiny doses of toxins “might” be a problem, but now we know that it IS. They didn’t think that it could exist, but they’re finding that it does. The dogma in toxicology is the dose makes the poison, but from these studies it turns out that’s not actually the case. What this is saying is that the body senses a medium dose and can do something about it. A high dose overwhelms the body and causes detoxification problems and causes damage.
It turns out that if the dose is low enough, the body doesn’t see it as a problem and it is able to cause the same physiological harm that a high dose causes. It’s saying that the dose doesn’t matter. A high dose is problematic and a low dose is problematic. Toxins are stored inside our bones, fat tissue, and brain. That has already been proven. And if the source is literally inside us (breast implants) then it’s leaking out slowly and that is a low dose we’re exposed to around the clock.
The real problem here is that most of the hundreds of millions of toxins are not tested (including those in breast implants). They only test for a one-time exposure, which isn’t what we’re dealing with. With breast implants inside of us (as well as exposure from the environment, things we put in our bodies and on our bodies), we have ongoing exposure to many different types of toxins.
Gel bleed has been studied and proven to be a problem with breast implants, so this is especially true in the case of breast implants. They only look at short-term outcomes; they don’t look at outcomes decades later or even years later or months later. To add to the confusion, mice have different detoxification adaptations and capacities than we do, yet mice are what are being used for these NOAEL studies.
So, are we toxic or not? Well of course we are, especially those who have breast implants. Do toxins get stored? Yes, they irrefutably do. They get stored in the bone, fat, and brain. Does the dose matter? My answer to this based not only on this study, but on countless women’s adverse health effects, is NO. A high dose causes problems and a low dose causes problems.
What about multiple toxin exposure? Is there a synergistic effect? Does the number of chemicals matter? Most studies are looking at one toxin at a time on an animal. But what about 10 or 20 at a time on humans at a low dose (as is the case with breast implants)?
Take Roundup, for example. In the pesticide industry they only have to report the safety data for the primary active ingredient, which is glyphosate. Take the study below for instance: The “active principles” being glyphosate.
What this paper is saying is that when you consider everything else that’s in Roundup it is 1000 times more toxic than we were told that it is.
SO! What does this mean for breast implants? Well, toxins in breast implants are tested the same way: one at a time, rather than combined as a whole. And they’re not tested over long-term exposure.
The bottom line here and the point of this blog post is to show that if we apply these findings to the combined multiple toxin exposure that we have with breast implants, we expect the same synergistic effect. And tiny doses from gel bleed do matter.