Are These Chemicals Part of a Depopulation Agenda?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

 Fact Checked
May 14, 2022

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
 In 1992, researchers published data showing the quality of sperm counts in men had
been cut nearly in half over the previous 50 years. A 2017 systematic review confirmed
this trend, showing a 50% to 60% drop in total sperm count among men in North America,
Europe, Australia and New Zealand between 1973 and 2011

 Testosterone has also declined in tandem with lower sperm counts, while miscarriage
rates among women and erectile dysfunction among men have been steadily rising

 We can rule out genetics as the cause, because the decline in sperm count is simply too
rapid. That leaves us with environmental causes. Environmental causes can be broadly
divided into two broad categories: Lifestyle and chemicals

 Lifestyle factors that negatively impact fertility include obesity, smoking, binge drinking
and stress

 A great number of chemicals can impact fertility either directly or indirectly, but the most
concerning class are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates. EDCs
disrupt hormones, including sex hormones necessary for reproductive function, such as
testosterone

In the After Skool video above, Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., a leading environmental and
reproductive epidemiologist and professor of environmental medicine and public health
at the Icahn school of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, examines the role of
environmental toxins in reproductive health.
In 1992, researchers published data showing the quality of sperm counts in men had
been cut nearly in half over the previous 50 years. According to this study:1

“Linear regression of data weighted by number of men in each study showed a

significant decrease in mean sperm count from 113 x 10(6)/ml in 1940 to 66 x
10(6)/ml in 1990 and in seminal volume from 3.40 ml to 2.75 ml, indicating an
even more pronounced decrease in sperm production than expressed by the
decline in sperm density ...

As male fertility is to some extent correlated with sperm count the results may
reflect an overall reduction in male fertility. The biological significance of these
changes is emphasized by a concomitant increase in the incidence of
genitourinary abnormalities such as testicular cancer and possibly also
cryptorchidism and hypospadias, suggesting a growing impact of factors with
serious effects on male gonadal function.”

Are Humans Going Extinct?

Swan was initially skeptical, but she decided to look into it some more. To her
amazement, after reviewing each of the 60 studies included in that 1992 analysis, she
could find nothing to indicate that the finding was a fluke. It was the most stable trend
she’d ever come across, and she spent the next 20 years investigating why human
reproduction is plummeting.

In 2017, she published a systematic review and meta-regression analysis2 showing a

50% to 60% drop in total sperm count among men in North America, Europe, Australia
and New Zealand between 1973 and 2011. Overall, men in these countries had a 52.4%
decline in sperm concentration and a 59.3% decline in total sperm count (sperm
concentration multiplied by the total volume of an ejaculate).

Swan refers to this shocking 39-year decline as “the 1% effect,” meaning the cumulative
effect that an annual change of just 1% has over time. Testosterone has also declined in
tandem with lower sperm counts, while miscarriage rates among women and erectile
dysfunction among men have been steadily rising.

If these trends continue, and there’s no indication that they won’t, in the not-so-distant
future, we’ll be looking at a male population that is completely infertile. At that point, the
human population will become extinct. Along the way, however, we’ll be facing a number
of other pressing problems.

How Will We Care for Aging Baby Boomers?

Historically, the age distribution of the population has looked like a pyramid. The bottom
largest section was children, the middle, slightly smaller section was working adults,
and the top of the pyramid was seniors. This worked out well, because the younger
population was able to financially support and care for the much smaller older segment.

We no longer have that pyramid. In most countries, the population distribution now
looks like a light bulb, with a narrow base of children, a bulbous segment of adults, and a
narrowing but still very large segment of older adults.

Part of the equation is the fact that life spans have gotten longer, which is wonderful.
But the funds to support this aging population — through social security and Medicare in
the U.S., for example — are dwindling, as the payer base is shrinking so dramatically.

Another problem is the fact that we won’t have the labor force required to keep the
economy afloat. There aren’t enough children to fill all the jobs after the adult population
retires.

What’s the Cause?

According to Swan, there are likely a whole host of factors contributing to this
reproductive calamity. We can, however, rule out genetics, because the decline in sperm
count is simply too rapid. A 50% decline in just two generations cannot be explained by
genetics.
That leaves us with environmental causes. Environmental causes can be broadly divided
into two broad categories: Lifestyle and chemicals. Lifestyle factors that negatively
impact fertility include:

Obesity

Smoking

Binge drinking

Stress

On the chemical side, we know that a great number of chemicals can impact fertility
either directly or indirectly, but the most concerning class are endocrine disrupting
chemicals (EDCs).3 EDCs disrupt hormones, including sex hormones necessary for
reproductive function.

Many EDCs will mimic hormones, effectively taking their place. But, of course, the
chemical doesn’t function the way the natural hormone does, so whatever that hormone
controls won’t function well either. As explained in the 2019 report, “Male Infertility and
Environmental Factors”:4

“Classically the EDCs bind to the androgen or estrogen receptor triggering an

agonist or antagonist action. These in turn lead to increased or decreased gene
expression of sex-specific genes.

In addition, EDCs act on steroidogenic enzymes and the metabolism of

hormones, for example, inhibit the activity of 5-α reductase, which is the most
important enzyme in the production of dihydrotestosterone and hence the
regulation of the masculinization of the external genitalia and the prostate.

Furthermore, P450 enzymes in the liver that metabolize steroid hormones may
be affected. In animal models EDCs affect hormone receptor levels. In addition
to the effect on hormone action, animal experiments suggest that EDCs may
also result in epigenetic changes and miRNA levels.”
Shaw suspects EDCs are a primary culprit in infertility, in part because we’re surrounded
by them every day of our lives. We’re exposed to them through our food, water, personal
care products, furniture, building materials, plastics and much more.

In Utero Exposure to EDCs Can Drive Down Fertility

The most vulnerable time of a person’s life is in utero. This is when the building blocks
for your reproductive system are laid down, and exposure to EDCs at this time can wreak
havoc with a child’s adult reproductive capacity. Since the fetus shares the mother’s
body, everything the mother is exposed to, the fetus is exposed to.

As explained in the video, a boy’s reproductive system is dependent on a certain level of

testosterone for proper development. If the testosterone level is too low, his
reproductive system will be impaired to some degree. In short, without sufficient
testosterone, the boy’s reproductive system will “default” to female. He will be
feminized, or as Shaw describes it, “incompletely masculinized.”

Phthalates Are in Everybody

Shaw was tipped off to investigate phthalates by a chemist at the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, who noted that these EDCs have been found in
everybody, including pregnant women.

“ Animal studies have shown that when a pregnant

mother is fed phthalates in early pregnancy, her male
offspring will have smaller and less developed
reproductive organs.
”
Specifically, phthalates have been shown to disrupt the reproductive development of
males, because they lower testosterone levels and incomplete male development in
animals has now become so prevalent, there’s even a name for it: phthalate syndrome.
Animal studies have shown that when a pregnant mother is fed phthalates in early
pregnancy, her male offspring will have smaller and less developed reproductive organs.
His testicles may not be descended, his penis may be smaller, and his anogenital
distance (the distance between the anus and the genitals) tends to be shorter.

Shaw was the first to study the anogenital distance in human male infants, and was able
to confirm phthalate syndrome is occurring in humans as well. Boys born of women with
high levels of phthalic metabolites in their urine — specifically those that lower
testosterone — had phthalate syndrome, and the severity was dose-dependent.

Shaw then replicated the study with another set of mothers and their babies, and found
the same result. The next question then is, does a shorter anogenital distance result in
lower sperm count?

According to Shaw, boys with a short anogenital distance are more likely to have
reproductive defects such as undescended testicles and defects of the penis. He’s also
more likely to develop testicular cancer at an earlier age than normal, and he’s more
likely to be sub-fertile.

So, it is her professional conclusion that phthalate exposure in utero is “undoubtedly

part of the explanation of the decrease in sperm count and fertility.” Phthalates and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have also been linked to reduced bone mineral
density in male teens,5 which could have significant implications later in life.

Common Sources of Phthalate Exposure

Phthalates are found in plastics. They’re what make the plastic soft and flexible, so
wherever you find soft and pliable plastic, you find phthalates. Examples include:

Vinyl clothing, such as raincoats and rubber boots

Plastic shower curtains

Plastic tubing of all kinds

 Foods that have been processed through plastic tubing, such as dairy products (the
milking machines have plastic tubing)

Phthalates also increase absorption and help retain scent and color, so you’ll find them
in:

Cosmetics, perfumes and personal care products

Scented household products such as laundry soap and air fresheners

Pesticides

As noted by Shaw, phthalates are only one class of EDCs. There are several others,
including phytoestrogens, dioxins, flame retardants, phenols, PCBs and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons. Phthalates, however, are among the most hazardous for male
reproductive health due to their ability to block testosterone.

Joe Rogan also recently interviewed Shaw about this. An excerpt is included below. The
full interview is available on Spotify.

Phenols Increase Female Sex Hormones

The phenols, such as bisphenol-A (BPA), have the opposite effect in that they make
plastic more rigid and hard. In the human body, they increase the female hormone
estrogen, resulting in breast development and a flabby midsection. BPA also damages
the DNA in sperm.6 Like phthalates, BPA and other bisphenols are extremely pervasive.
They’re found in:

The lining of tin cans Dental sealants

Nonstick food wrappers (food wrappers Hard plastic sippy cups and bottles
also contain PFAS)

Carpeting Personal care products such as

shampoos and lotions
The Good News

The good news here is that many of the chemicals that are most harmful to
reproduction are not persistent, and your body can eliminate them in four to six hours.

Sperm production take about 70 days from start to finish, so over time, a man may be
able to reverse some of the damage, provided it’s not congenital. The problem, of
course, is that most people are exposed to multiple sources 24/7, so successful detox
means you have to stop taking them in.

Another piece of good news is that researchers have shown that if you clean up the
environment of the offspring from a toxic, unhealthy rat, normal reproductive capacity is
restored after three generations of clean living.

While this is a relatively quick fix for rats, the life span of which is only two years, it’s not
quite as simple for humans. Three generations in human terms is about 75 years, “but
we can start in that direction,” Shaw says, by making sure we a) don’t expose children to
EDCs in utero, and b) eliminate further exposure during childhood if the child was
exposed in utero.

Forever Chemicals in Our Food and Water

While phthalates and bisphenols are nonpersistent, PFAS — a class of chemicals that
are pervasive in soil, water, and human bodies — are so persistent they’re known as
“forever chemicals.” In Maine, farmers are now blowing the whistle, warning that PFAS
on farmland are a “slow-motion disaster.”7

How do the chemicals get there? While spills and seepage from industrial sites are part
of the problem in some areas, the most prevalent source of the contamination is
biosolids — toxic human waste sludge — which is being marketed as an affordable
fertilizer.
In 2019, I wrote about how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to
adequately regulate the biosolids industry, thereby allowing massive quantities of toxic
materials to be introduced into our food supply.

You can learn more about this in the Natural News documentary “Biosludged,” above.
PFAS accumulate in the soil and is transferred into your food. Proof of this can be seen
in food testing, which in 2017 found PFAS chemicals in 10 of the 91 foods tested.

Chocolate cake had the highest amount — 250 times above the advisory limit for
drinking water. (There’s currently no limit for food.) Nearly half of the meat and fish
tested also contained double the advisory limit for water. Leafy greens grown within 10
miles of a PFAS plant also contained very high amounts. As you might expect, PFAS also
accumulate in your body.

Maine Takes Action

In Maine, PFAS contaminated water wells have sparked both outrage and action. A
March 2022 article in The Maine Monitor spells out the game plan:8

“Maine is the first state to comprehensively test for the impacts of forever
chemicals from sludge spreading on farmland, a practice occurring nationwide
where fully half of wastewater sludge is land-applied. Consequently, Maine has
had to pioneer policy actions, moving to implement recommendations of a year-
long PFAS task force.

The next policy step must be passage of LD 1911, which would ban land
application of sludge and the land application or sale of compost derived from
sludge. Two dozen companies and municipalities are licensed to convert sludge
into compost, despite the state’s own finding that 89% of finished compost
samples exceeded the screening level for PFOA, a common PFAS compound.

Adam Nordell, co-owner of Songbird Farm in Unity — another site of high PFAS
contamination — summarized the importance of LD 1911 this way: ‘No one can
 undo the historic contamination of our land. But we know enough now to turn
off the tap.’

A second bill before the Legislature, LD 1639, would prevent the state-owned
Juniper Ridge landfill, managed by Casella Waste Systems, from accepting
construction and demolition debris that originated out of state and is laden with
PFAS and other toxics, increasing the contaminated leachate entering the
Penobscot River.”

Toxic Pesticides

Communities in Maryland and Massachusetts have also confirmed that pesticides used
against mosquitoes were contaminated with PFAS, even though they’re not supposed to
contain such chemicals. In April 2022, the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) reported:9

“EPA claimed that there were no PFAS chemicals used in this way, but
independent testing10 revealed that there was PFAS contamination in pesticides
being used by mosquito control districts — of 14 mosquito control products
tested, half were found to contain PFAS. These products are heavily applied
across communities, often weekly, from Spring through Fall.

In response to these concerns, EPA claimed that the PFAS contamination was
due to leaching from fluorinated plastic HDPE storage containers. While this
explanation has been touted by many as proof that PFAS contamination of
pesticides is not a serious concern, the testing in Maryland and Massachusetts
revealed that three products were contaminated from another source than the
containers.

Beyond this kind of contamination, PFAS are active ingredients in at least 40

pesticide products used worldwide. And this only accounts for pesticides that
include PFAS as an active ingredient.

PFAS products are a popular surfactant (helps spray more easily) so PFAS may
also be used as inert ingredients in pesticides, which unfortunately don’t have
 to be reported since chemical composition falls under ‘trade secret’ jurisdiction.

It is clear that PFAS are present in a variety of commonly-used pesticide

products, regardless of storage conditions. No research has been done on the
synergistic effects of PFAS and pesticides — which we know pose their own set
of human and environmental health risks.”

Again and again, the EPA has failed in its duty to protect public health from chemicals
that wreak havoc on human health, fetal development and fertility. As noted by PAN,
“EPA has engaged in a regulatory stalling tactic — changing the definition of what is
considered to be a PFAS to shirk responsibility.”

The new “working definition” of PFAS has been considerably narrowed from what it was,
thereby excluding many chemicals used in drugs and pesticides. To counter the EPA’s
deliberate shortcomings, the U.S. Congress has also introduced a bill (HR.5987 — the
PFAS Definition Improvement Act11) that would require the EPA to use the widest and
most comprehensive definition of PFAS.

I join PAN in urging you to call on your representatives to co-sponsor this bill. Maine and
Maryland have also proposed bills to prevent PFAS contamination in pesticides
specifically.

It’s hard to be optimistic when faced with such dire statistics as a 1% reduction in male
fertility per year. But if we care about life, we must at least try to turn things around. One
step in the right direction would be to eliminate EDCs from common use. In the
meantime, men and women of childbearing age would be wise to take precautions and
clear out anything that might expose them to these chemicals in their day-to-day lives,
before they try to conceive.

Sources and References

1 BMJ September 12, 1992, 305(6854): 609-613

2 Human Reproduction Update November-December 2017; 23(6): 646-659
3, 4
   Global Reproductive Health 2019; 4(2): e28
5 Newswise April 29, 2022
6 WTOL11 April 29, 2022, Updated May 2, 2022
7, 8 The Maine Monitor March 13, 2022
9 PANNA.org April 20, 2022
10 Maryland Pesticide Network March 26, 2021
11 HR.5987