Why Science is Grasping in the Dark

Two amateurs might have discovered something that hundreds of scientists could not recognize – doesn't that sound ridiculous? Or maybe not?

All approaches are based on the assumption that indoor air quality is always fine. There are exceptions, but according to scientific studies, indoor air is considered safe and hardly ever exceeds threshold values.

First, we should look at how these threshold values were established. One of the most alarming examples is the threshold value for CO2, which was set as a recommendation at 1000 ppm. Thus, 1000 ppm should not be exceeded in indoor spaces over the long term.

But where did this 1000 ppm threshold come from? Over 100 years ago, a scientist conducted CO2 measurements indoors and found that the average CO2 level indoors was about 1,000 ppm. Whether this is harmful to health was not assessed in his study. He merely calculated the current average in the rooms. From that point on, 1000 ppm was used as a recommendation.

Over 100 years later, researchers found evidence that inflammation reactions in the body occur at 1000 ppm of CO2. Even the metabolism is disrupted. Nevertheless, the recommendation remains at 1000 ppm, even though damage has already been proven to occur at this level. Moreover, it remains just a recommendation for public buildings. This CO2 value is hardly checked anywhere. And if it is, ventilation systems are specifically set to the value of 1000 ppm, making no attempt to lower it.

The situation is similar with VOC. There is an indoor threshold value of 1000 µg/m³ TVOC. In Germany, however, we were unable to procure a device that measures TVOC. All devices available for home use in Germany measure only VOC. There's an important distinction here. A device measuring VOC may only measure a single substance of an entire group of substances, depending on the sensor used in the device and varying from device to device. These show a low VOC value. Other substances in the VOC group are either not measured at all or only partially by these sensors. In many studies, I read how VOC and TVOC were arbitrarily exchanged, as many assume they are the same. So, VOC is measured repeatedly and indeed is usually below the threshold value of 1000 µg/m³, while the correct measurement, TVOC, in the same rooms according to our measurements often exceeded 5000 µg/m³. Often even far beyond the measuring range of our device of 9999 µg/m³

Although there are regulations for TVOC, we found a drastic exceedance of the permissible threshold values in all public buildings, doctor's offices, hospitals, shopping centers, and nearly every private household without exception, sometimes by up to 50 times.

Yet, science continues to assume that there is generally no problem indoors.

A similar phenomenon concerns walking... According to current opinion, one should walk at least 10,000 steps a day. But where does this recommendation come from? This recommendation is not scientifically substantiated. It was merely the maximum measurement value of the first digital pedometers that came onto the market. Their display simply ended at 9999 steps, and for some unexplained reason, this then became a general recommendation for a healthy life, which, however, has nothing to do with actual health findings.

The situation is similar with radon. While the WHO has specified a threshold value of under 100 Bq/m³, Germany, for example, uses 300 Bq/m³. This is ultimately because in most households the value is randomly below 300 but not below 100. Therefore, the introduction of the 300 threshold affected fewer households. However, it should be mentioned that we measured 850 Bq/m³ in our basement. None of us knew beforehand that it was even possible to have such high values in the apartment.

In conversations with doctors, we noticed that none of them had heard of TVOC, VOC, or radon, or they immediately excluded it as a possible cause of disease. And simply because they could not imagine that these values would be elevated. Nevertheless, in every one of these doctors, we found drastically high CO2, TVOC, and formaldehyde values that exceeded the threshold values by at least five times. Yet, all continued to exclude this as a possible cause of disease. Although it is scientifically proven that this leads to "Sick-Building Syndrome."

Finally, science has completely overlooked some other important points. Not only that the threshold values are not checked at all, but the threshold values have mostly been arbitrarily set. In addition, people are spending more and more time indoors, and these are also becoming more and more tightly sealed to save energy. Even if one of the threshold values did not pose a danger over 100 years ago, we are exposed to these substances for increasingly longer periods and thus have a much higher total exposure.

Yet, everyone turns a blind eye to this. No one wants to see the obvious problems because the solution, namely massive ventilation, cannot be pressed into pill form

Another example

Another example is that scientists may have identified a cause of problems in the modern world among indigenous peoples: specific gut bacteria unique to these populations.

This leads to the scientific question of whether these gut bacteria prevent indigenous peoples from suffering from our chronic diseases, and whether it is possible to transfer and commercially exploit these bacteria to modern society.

The researchers were originally sent to find medically verifiable differences. However, an obvious aspect was overlooked: these peoples do not spend their day in enclosed spaces and do not sleep in nearly airtight buildings. Yet, the study focused on the medical aspect, not on environmental factors.

So, what is more likely? A special gut bacterium that can solve all chronic diseases in our society, or the simple fact that these indigenous peoples do not stay in poorly ventilated indoor spaces?

The scientific conclusion leans towards the former, as the second option was not investigated. The client was primarily interested in a marketable product, and the recommendation for better ventilation is commercially less attractive than the development of a potential medication.

Even when scientists are truly striving to find a solution to a problem, the most obvious solutions often remain hidden.

If the sick are the healthy ones...

Let's assume 100 people are each stung by a bee. Of these, 20 develop an allergic reaction and 80 do not.

Which of these groups is sick?

Everyone will immediately answer, the 20 individuals with the allergic reaction. But are we sure about that?

A bee sting releases venom into the body. Is it normal that the body does not react, as with the 80 individuals? Or would a reaction of the body in the form of a strong swelling, as with the other 20 individuals, not be much more sensible to keep the venom in check?

If all people are constantly exposed to pollutants, we can no longer assume that the majority is healthy. Quite the contrary. We must assume that the majority has not shown a normal reaction to environmental toxins since birth.

What if the people who develop an allergic reaction, panic attacks, cramps, headaches, migraines, anxiety, nausea, discomfort, and so much more in terms of symptoms are the only ones who still react normally to environmental pollutants? What if it is not normal to not notice any of this at all?

Have you ever asked yourself why people who have developed all sorts of diseases throughout their lives still tend to live longer than those who apparently lacked nothing until they suddenly develop cancer?

We should stop asking ourselves why we are sick. We should ask why the others are not. Does the body of the others even notice the danger? Does it still react to toxins from outside? Or are we the healthy ones who get a cold, have an allergic reaction, or develop anxiety disorders in certain situations? If so, one should not try to fix our symptoms. One should try to interpret the symptoms correctly and thus help those whose bodies have already given up the fight against pollutants.