This was the pimary matter that was in the complaints submitted to the court to challenge the validity of the 2020 election. It now is being heard if they were right, but this wouldn’t have impact on the election itself. Some may not see this as exactly the matter. However, it is the Constitutional matter […]
John Notte’s Bye-law against Usury (still invoked from time to time). The Sheriff John Nott (of the ancient Vicecommital house of 4 counties that overlap the Mercian circle of Kineton, continuing for Centuries as Lords of Solihull, etc of the Arden’s Saxon Royal inheritance), during his elected term as Lord Mayor he made a bye-law […]
We at www.Watchman.news have written extensively on China’s Unrestricted Warfare, and the unprecedented alignment of China with India, as well as Iran, North Korea, Latin America, Turkey and Russia. In agreement with other great measures to protect our national security we believe this group of public servants will continue most dutifully to help protect against […]
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published November 14, 2018.
Cellphones were classified as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen”1 in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization and the global gold standard for the classification of toxins.
This classification was based on evidence showing that nonionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cellphones can trigger abnormal cell growth and tumors.2,3
In my view, this is a mistake and, just like smoking, I am confident it will be recategorized in the future to a 1A carcinogen.
Earlier this year, preliminary findings of two government-funded animal studies4 were published that further support the notion that cellphone radiation has carcinogenic potential.
The finalized report5 of these two studies — conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program under the auspices of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — was released November 1, 2018. While the preliminary report released in February 2018 significantly downplayed the findings, subsequent peer review upgraded the findings of risk.
Cellphone Radiation Linked to Brain and Heart Tumors
The NTP rates cancer risk based on four categories of evidence: “clear evidence” (highest); “some evidence;” “equivocal evidence;” and “no evidence” (lowest). According to the NTP’s final report, the two studies, done on mice and rats of both sexes, found:6
• Clear evidence for heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) in male rats. These types of tumors started developing around week 70, and are very similar to acoustic neuromas found in humans, a benign type of tumor that previous studies have linked to cellphone use
• Some evidence of brain tumors (malignant gliomas) in male rats. Glial cell hyperplasias — indicative of precancerous lesions — began developing around week 58.
(Incidentally, incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (the deadliest type of brain tumor) more than doubled in the U.K. between 1995 and 2015.7,8 According to the authors of the analysis, the dramatic increase is likely due to “widespread environmental or lifestyle factors,” which would include cellphone usage)
• Some evidence of adrenal gland tumors in male rats, both benign and malignant tumors and/or complex combined pheochromocytoma
• Equivocal or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders
The studies also found evidence of:
• Low body weight in female rats and newborns exposed to high levels of radiation during pregnancy and lactation
• DNA damage and damage to heart tissue in exposed male and female rats, but not mice
• Prostate, liver and pancreatic tumors in both rats and mice
Are Humans at Risk?
According to The New York Times:9
“‘We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real,’ John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.
But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot ‘be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience’ …
The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users … The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.”
While the NTP insists the exposure — nine hours a day for two years, which is the lifetime of a rodent — is far more extensive than that of heavy cellphone users, I would strongly disagree, seeing how many, especially the younger generation, have their cellphones turned on and near their body 24/7.
Many are literally sleeping with their phone beneath their pillow. What’s more, cellphones are not the sole source of radiofrequency (RF) EMFs. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth-enabled tablets, computers, smart TVs, wireless baby monitors, cordless phones, smart appliances, smart meters and nearby cellular phone basestations are sources of similarly harmful radiation, and most of us are exposed 24/7.
So, my guess is that the duration of RF-EMF exposure is actually far greater than the one tested in the study.
Did NTP Minimize Press Coverage of Their Report?
According to Microwave News, the NTP may have purposely minimized press coverage of its final report, which upgraded the risks. “Reporters were given very little notice to join the NTP teleconference on the release of the report. Nor was there much time to prepare a story for publication,” Microwave News reports,10 adding they were not informed of the teleconference via email until 10:45 a.m. October 31.
The conference was held at 2 p.m. that same day. While NTP refused to state how many reporters were on the call, the transcript reveals only eight reporters asked questions, giving the impression that many likely missed the advisory. Editors also had precious little time to assign a reporter to cover the story. Microwave News adds:
“The news that the NTP now believes the cancer link is “real” was under embargo until the next day, November 1. That gave the news media less than 24 hours to prepare their stories, an unusually short time for a technically complex subject. The main reason for embargoes is to give reporters time to do their homework and prepare a clear and accurate write-up …
Even the fact that the report was coming out in less than a day was embargoed by the NTP. It apparently wanted no advance notice of any kind … There was one exception among major media outlets: The New York Times … As it happened, [William] Broad, a long-time member of the science desk, was already working on the story. He was making background calls a week earlier …
There’s a long history of New York Times science reporters — Broad included — downplaying, if not outright dismissing, news of electromagnetic health effects. Anyone wanting to conceal the fact that NTP had found ‘clear evidence’ that cellphone radiation could lead to cancer would likely leak the story to the Times. And the Times delivered.
Here’s the headline from its web site: ‘Study of Cellphone Risks Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats’ … [T]here is the obvious error in the headline: NTP found more than ‘some evidence’ — it saw ‘clear evidence’ … The subhead … ‘Many Caveats Apply, and the Results Involve Radio Frequencies Long Out of Routine Use,’ offers additional — unjustifiable — reasons to discount the NTP finding.”
The New York Times also claims the results are out of date due to the fact they used 2G, which is no longer in widespread use, and that 3G, 4G and 5G are “far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans” due to the higher frequencies. However, there’s no evidence to suggest the newer technologies are safer. Quite the contrary. As noted by Microwave News:
“Two different German labs have exposed mice to 3G. Cancer promotion was found in each case. The lead author of the second study, Alex Lerchl, concluded that 3G signals ‘obviously enhance the growth of tumors’ … The fact is that we don’t know whether the higher G’s are any safer than 2G. Believing so is simply wishful thinking.”
The NTP also downplayed the risks by stressing that “high exposure” was associated with cancer in male rats, when in fact the results in some instances revealed a greater effect at a lower dose.
Such nonlinear dose response was also found in Lerchl’s study, in which a dose 50 times lower than the highest dose resulted in a greater response. “At this point, one can only guess where the threshold for RF effects may be. It could be lower than now commonly believed, possibly much lower,” Microwave News notes.
Why Rodent Schwannomas Could Spell Trouble for Human Health
As explained by Louis Slesin, Ph.D., editor and publisher of Microwave News, the increased incidence of schwannomas in rodents exposed to radiofrequencies is of great concern for public health:11
“Schwann cells play a key role in the functioning of the peripheral nervous system. They make the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve fibers and helps speed the conduction of electrical impulses. There are Schwann cells just about everywhere there are peripheral nerve fibers. They are present in most organs of the body — whether mice, rats or humans.
Schwann cell tumors are called schwannomas. The NTP found schwannomas in many other organs, in addition to the heart, of rats chronically exposed to cellphone radiation. These included a variety of glands (pituitary, salivary and thymus), the trigeminal nerve and the eye … The NTP also saw schwannomas in the uterus, ovary and vagina of female rats.
The brain has no Schwann cells — the brain is part of the central nervous system. There, glial cells play a similar function. In fact, Schwann cells are a type of glial cell … Tumors of the glial cells are called gliomas. The NTP also saw an increase in glioma among the male rats exposed to GSM and CDMA radiation …
While schwannomas and gliomas are commonly noncancerous tumors, they can develop into malignant schwannomas or glioblastomas … The implication is that instead of searching for consistency in radio frequencies’ ability to cause cancer in specific organs, the emphasis should now be on specific cell types — beginning with Schwann cells in the periphery and glial cells in the brain.”
Mitochondrial Dysfunction Is a Hazard of Cellphone Radiation
In my view, the primary hazard of cellphone radiation is not brain cancer per se but rather systemic cellular and mitochondrial damage,12,13,14,15 which can contribute to any number of health problems and chronic diseases. The process begins when low-frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs)16 — channels in the outer membrane of your cells.
Once activated, the VGCCs open up, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell. This increased intracellular calcium and the accompanying increase in calcium signaling appears to be responsible for a majority of the damage that occurs. This is reviewed in more detail in my interview with professor Martin Pall below.
For example, excess calcium activates nitric oxide, and while nitric oxide has many health benefits, massively excessive nitric oxide reacts with superoxide to produce peroxynitrites — extremely potent oxidant stressors.17 Peroxynitrites in turn:
Can cause single-strand DNA breaks18
Modify tyrosine molecules in proteins to create nitrotyrosine and nitration of structural protein.19 Changes from nitration are visible in human biopsy of atherosclerosis, myocardial ischemia, inflammatory bowel disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and septic lung disease20
This pathway of oxidative destruction — triggered by low-frequency radiation emitted from mobile devices — may partially explain the unprecedented growth rate of chronic disease since 1990,21 and is a far greater concern than brain tumors.
Download Interview Transcript
EMF Exposure Can Cause Heart Issues, Neurological Disorders
While an estimated 94,390 U.S. men, women and children will be diagnosed with a brain tumor this year,22 another 787,000 people die from heart disease.23 So, while the relative rarity of brain cancer may lead you to believe that cellphone use is safe, that’s only because you’re looking at a less prevalent outcome.
Cellphone radiation has also been shown to have a significant impact on neurological and mental health,24 contributing to and/or worsening anxiety, depression and dementia, for example, and all of these conditions are rampant and growing more prevalent. (This also makes sense as brain dysfunction will occur much faster than a tumor, which can take decades.)
Research also suggests excessive EMF exposure is contributing to reproductive problems. For example, researchers have found prenatal exposure to power-frequency fields can nearly triple a pregnant woman’s risk of miscarriage.25
According to lead author and senior research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s research division, Dr. De-Kun Li,26 “This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that magnetic field exposure in daily life could have adverse health impacts,” adding his findings “should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women.”
According to Li, there are at least six other studies, in addition to two of his own, showing this link.27,28,29,30,31 EMF exposure may also play a significant role in testicular cancer and male infertility.
Studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation exposure from cellphones to an 8% reduction in sperm motility and a 9% reduction in sperm viability.32,33 Wi-Fi equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.34
US FDA Stands Firm on Cellphone Safety
NTP’s final report has now been given to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the two agencies involved in the regulation of cellphones and assessment of health risks. Unfortunately, the FDA appears unwilling to change its stance on cellphone safety.
This is no surprise as the telecommunication industry has far more political lobbying influence than Big Pharma and Big Food combined. To expect anything other than full support for the telecommunication industry would be irrational.
In a November 1 press statement, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, reaffirmed the agency’s position, saying:35
“The Food and Drug Administration is charged with ensuring cellphones — and any radiation-emitting electronic product — are safe for the public to use. Our scientific expertise and input, along with other health agencies, are used by the [FCC] to set the standards for exposure limits of radiation from cellphones, called radiofrequency energy …
We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the [NTP] … [W]e disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy.
In the NTP study, researchers looked at the effects of exposing rodents to extremely high levels of radiofrequency throughout the entire body. This is commonly done in these types of hazard identification studies and means that the study tested levels of radiofrequency energy exposures considerably above the current whole body safety limits for cell phones … [T]hese findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.
NTP hosted a three-day peer review of this study in March, as part of their normal process for issuing scientific reports … which included an assessment of the study methods and data by a panel of 15 peer reviewers to determine the basis of evidence for the final report.
Based on their assessment, the panel voted to upgrade the conclusions from some evidence to clear evidence for malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and from equivocal (ambiguous) to some evidence for malignant gliomas of the brain and benign tumors of the adrenal gland in male rats. It’s important to note that the vote does not mean new data or findings were reported in the final assessment …
Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cellphones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”
NTP Findings Have Already Been Reproduced
While the FDA insists it “must thoroughly evaluate and take into consideration the totality of the data, and do so within the context of the complete body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the results of a single study,” it fails to address the elephant in the room, which is the corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute just one month after the NTP released its preliminary report in February 2018.
The Ramazzini study36 reproduces and clearly supports the NTP’s findings, showing a clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors (schwannomas)37,38,39 — but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP.
While NTP used radiofrequency (RF) levels comparable to what’s emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones (near-field exposure), Ramazzini simulated exposure to cellphone towers (far-field exposure). Ramazzini’s rats were exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM radiation at electric field strengths of 5, 25 and 50 volts per meter40 for 19 hours a day, starting at birth until the rats died either from age or illness.
To facilitate comparison, the researchers converted their measurements to watts per kilogram of body weight (W/kg), which is what the NTP used. Overall, the radiation dose administered in the Ramazzini study was up to 1,000 times lower than the NTP’s — and below the U.S. limits set by the FCC — yet the results are strikingly similar.
As in the NTP studies, exposed male rats developed statistically higher rates of heart schwannomas than unexposed rats. They also found some evidence, although weaker, that RF exposure increased rates of glial tumors in the brains of female rats.
The fact that the Ramazzini study used a radiation dose well below FCC limits yet still reproduced the NTP’s findings of cancer really weakens the FDA’s claims of safety.
Tech Founders Don’t Want Their Own Kids Using Technology
The good news is that after more than a decade of mounting warnings, many are finally starting to take cellphone exposure seriously — at least as it pertains to their kids. Adults still struggle to curb their own cellphone and computer use, but at least minimizing exposure to children is a step in the right direction, and in my view a really crucial one.
The New York Times recently reported on the trend among Silicon Valley parents to forbid the use of tablets, computers, cellphones and TVs by their young children, and nannies are increasingly having to sign contracts to that end. New York Times contributor Nellie Bowles writes:41
“Even a little screen time can be so deeply addictive, some parents believe, that it’s best if a child neither touches nor sees any of these glittering rectangles. These particular parents, after all, deeply understand their allure … Enter the Silicon Valley nanny, who each day returns to the time before screens.
‘Usually a day consists of me being allowed to take them to the park, introduce them to card games,’ said Jordin Altmann, 24, a nanny in San Jose, of her charges. ‘Board games are huge. Almost every parent I work for is very strong about the child not having any technical experience at all … In the last two years, it’s become a very big deal’ …
The fear of screens has reached the level of panic in Silicon Valley. Vigilantes now post photos to parenting message boards of possible nannies using cellphones near children. Which is to say, the very people building these glowing hyper-stimulating portals have become increasingly terrified of them …
‘The people who are closest to tech are the most strict about it at home,’ said Lynn Perkins, the CEO of UrbanSitter, which she says has 500,000 sitters in the network throughout the United States. ‘We see that trend with our nannies very clearly.'”
Take Safety Precautions to Lower Your Family’s EMF Exposure
> > > > > Click Here
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 16, 2018.
Recent research into the health effects of artificial sweeteners deliver yet another blow to safety claims. The animal study,1,2,3,4,5 published in the journal Molecules, found all artificial sweeteners currently approved and deemed safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cause DNA damage in, and interfere with the normal and healthy activity of gut bacteria. The artificial sweeteners included in this study included:
Artificial sweetener
Brand name(s)
Aspartame
NutraSweet, Spoonful, Canderel, Equal, NatraTaste Blue
Sucralose
Splenda, Zerocal, Sukrana, SucraPlus, Candys, Cukren and Nevella
Saccharin
Sweet ‘N Low, Sweet Twin, Sugar Twin, Necta Sweet
Neotame
Newtame
Advantame
(No brand names)
Acesulfame potassium-k
Sunnette, Sweet One, ACE, ACE K, Sweet ‘N Safe
All Artificial Sweeteners Are Toxic to Gut Bacteria
As reported by Business Insider,6 the research team concluded that all of these sweeteners “had a toxic, stressing effect, making it difficult for gut microbes to grow and reproduce.” While the authors do not directly refer to them as having antibiotic effects, when something is killing bacteria, that’s essentially what’s happening.
According to the researchers, the effects on your gut health may in turn affect your body’s ability to process regular sugar and other carbohydrates. According to this study, the toxic limit for these artificial sweeteners appears to be around 1 milligram per milliliter (mg/mL).
Ariel Kushmaro, Ph.D., professor of microbial biotechnology at Ben-Gurion University and lead author, told Business Insider, “We are not claiming that it’s toxic to human beings. We’re claiming that it might be toxic to the gut bacteria, and by that, will influence us.”
Sweetener-Specific Effects
While, overall, all six artificial sweeteners were found to have toxic effects on gut bacteria, there were individual differences in the type and amount of damage they produced. For example:
Saccharin caused the greatest, most widespread damage, exhibiting both cytotoxic and genotoxic effects, meaning it is toxic to cells and damages genetic information in the cell (which can cause mutations).
Neotame was found to cause metabolic disruption in mice, and raised concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol. Several gut genes were also decreased by this sweetener.
Aspartame and acesulfame potassium-k — The latter of which is commonly found in sports supplements — were both found to cause DNA damage.
Hazards of Sucralose
Previous studies have also revealed an extensive list of safety concerns for sucralose (a synthetic organochlorine sweetener), some of which are very similar to those found in the featured study, including:7
Genotoxicity (DNA damage) and potentially adverse epigenetic effects
The generation of toxic compounds (chloropropanols) when heated
Destruction of gut bacteria;8 one study9 found it can kill as much as 50% of your microbiome, and appears to target beneficial microorganisms
Alterations in glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 levels and responses,10 which raises the risk for diabetes
Decreased red blood cells, a sign of anemia, at levels above 1,500 mg per kilo per day
Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
Kidney enlargement and calcification
Significantly increased risk for miscarriage (in rabbits, spontaneous abortions affected nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group)
Significantly increased death rate (a 23% death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6% in the control group)
Bioaccumulation11
Potential drug interactions12
Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Diabetes and CVD
Other recent research13,14 adds to the ever-growing evidence pile showing that artificial sweeteners raise your risk of obesity and Type 2 diabetes to the same or greater degree as sugar. The study in question explored how different sweeteners — including glucose, fructose, aspartame and acesulfame potassium-k — affect energy usage, energy storage and vascular functioning.
According to the authors, both high amounts of sugar and artificial sweeteners caused vascular impairment and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) effects “that may be important during the onset and progression of diabetes and obesity.” The artificial sweeteners, however, accumulated in the blood, thereby harming the blood vessel lining to a greater degree.
Of the two artificial sweeteners included in this study, acesulfame potassium appeared to be the worst. As noted by lead author Brian Hoffmann, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of biomedical engineering at the Marquette University and Medical College of Wisconsin:15
“Sweeteners kind of trick the body. And then when your body’s not getting the energy it needs — because it does need some sugar to function properly — it potentially finds that source elsewhere,” Hoffman says.16
One alternative sugar source is muscle and, indeed, evidence of protein break down was found in the animals’ blood. Essentially, the rats were burning muscle as a source of energy when given artificial sweeteners. Hoffman also notes that this research is different from previous attempts to conclusively tie artificial sweeteners to health problems:
“Most of these sweeteners were approved well before we had the technology to perform studies like my lab is doing. So they weren’t able to look as in-depth at some of the potential effects being caused.
By knowing what biochemical changes these are causing through these large-scale studies, we can take an unbiased approach and see what’s changing to give us a better direction. What I like to tell people is that most things in moderation are going to be fine …
It’s when people start to chronically consume these [drinks] — say, a person drinks two, three, four … every day — that we should start to be concerned. Because you’re starting to introduce these biochemical changes and the body has no time to recover.”
Artificial Sweeteners Associated With Many Health Problems
Research published over the last three decades has also convincingly shown that artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite, increase cravings for carbs, and produce a variety of metabolic dysfunctions that promote fat storage and weight gain.
As early as 1986, a study17 that examined nearly 78,700 women for one year found women who used artificial sweeteners were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use them, regardless of their initial weight.
According to the researchers, the results “were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns. The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain.”
Similarly, the 25-yearslong San Antonio Heart Study,18 published in 2005, found those who drank diet soda were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who drank regular soda. On average, for each diet soft drink the participants drank per day, they were 65% more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41% more likely to become obese.
In 2010, an important scientific review19 was published in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. It summarized the epidemiological and experimental evidence available on artificial sweeteners’ effects on weight, and explained those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward.
More than 11,650 children aged 9 to 14 were included in this study. Each daily serving of diet beverage was associated with a BMI increase of 0.16 kg/m2. It also showed the correlation between increased usage of artificial sweeteners in food and drinks, and the corresponding rise in obesity. According to the authors:
“[F]indings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant … Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners … [A]rtificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence.”
Three years later, a report20 published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism highlighted the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same exact health problems as those who opt for regular soda, including excessive weight gain, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke. The researchers proposed that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.
Your Body Is Not Fooled by Zero-Calorie Sweetness
Right around 2013, research started emerging detailing some of the reasons for why zero calorie sweeteners can make you gain weight. A study in the Journal of Physiology21,22 showed that when you eat something sweet, your brain releases dopamine, which activates your brain’s reward center.
The appetite-regulating hormone leptin is also released, which eventually informs your brain that you are “full” once a certain amount of calories has been ingested. When you consume something that tastes sweet but doesn’t contain any calories, your brain’s pleasure pathway still gets activated by the sweet taste, but there’s nothing to deactivate it, since the calories never arrive.
Artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it’s going to receive calories, but when the calories fail to arrive, your body continues to signal that it needs more, which results in carb cravings.
The following year, 2014, another important study23 was published in the journal Nature. It was, for the first time, able to clearly show causality, revealing there’s a direct cause and effect relationship between consuming artificial sweeteners and developing elevated blood sugar levels.
People who consumed high amounts of artificial sweeteners were found to have higher levels of HbA1C — a long-term measure of blood sugar — compared to nonusers or occasional users of artificial sweeteners.
Seven volunteers who did not use artificial sweeteners were then recruited, and asked to consume the equivalent of 10 to 12 single-dose packets of artificial sweeteners daily for one week. Four of the seven people developed “significant disturbances in their blood glucose,” according to the researchers.
Some became prediabetic within just a few days! The reason for this dramatic shift was traced back to alterations in gut bacteria. Some bacteria were killed off, while others started proliferating. Which brings us back full circle to the featured study in the journal Molecules, which showed that all artificial sweeteners currently on the U.S. market have the ability to impair and/or kill gut bacteria.
Considering what we now know about the gut microbiome and its influence on health and disease, it’s becoming easier to see how and why artificial sweeteners are able to wreak havoc on your health.
To Improve Your Health, Ditch the Artificial Sweeteners
If you’re overweight and/or have insulin resistance or Type 2 diabetes, it’s really important to understand that artificial sweeteners are not going to help matters. They’re probably only going to make it worse.
If you have to choose between two evils, regularly-sweetened beverages are likely less hazardous in the long run, since your body at least knows how to metabolize fructose, even if it is processed.
That said, I firmly believe ditching soda and other sweetened beverages is one of the most important steps you can take to improve your weight and health. Remember, pure water is a zero-calorie drink. You cannot find a beverage that contains fewer calories.
If you want some flavor, just squeeze a little bit of fresh lemon or lime into mineral water. In instances where your cooking, baking or beverage needs a little sweetener, be mindful of your choice. For more information, see “Sugar Substitutes — What’s Safe and What’s Not.”
“The Race of Christians” a phrase embraced by the persecuted early church Martyrs. (Transcript released notes for the topic broadcasted on “Our Father’s Business”. A message by Dr Stephen MK Brunswick.) The early Saints gladly used the terminology used by their persecutors, called “the Race of Christians” to refer to their physical genealogy/genetics (or Gentry). […]
Learn more about the topic of the Central Banking Credit Fraud Read the book or download “Usury Destroyer of Nations” by SC Mooney
Great booklet by a former Washington DC Lobbyist Sheldon Emry. Who should be drafted? Should all women be equally drafted to war (by force) as they’re proposing? Download the PDF and/or share the url. Should Women be Forcibly Drafted to Equally Serve in Heavy Combat Warfare? How will we look as a people, seeing thousands […]
The Long Planned Neo-liberal Trap To Disarm Traditional Conservatives for a fake sympathy for Edomite & Communist enemies of America. New video has emerged from India outlining how they align totally with the North Korean, Iranian, Russian, Syrian and Chinese “pay back” against the West! Special report by Dr Brunswick, Priory of Salem, Institute of […]
Credit Fraud Banking is Repugnant to the Constitution Dr Ron Paul, was a Republican candidate who won the popular election. Although he broke many records to show he would be the winner, was blacked out by the media and his own party. He made this his primary platform, sounding the alarm that this unlawful money […]
About half of the the below content was covered on our LIVE weekly broadcast “Our Father’s Business“. The rest of the content, including a section on the First Century British Saints will come out in our next message. Stay tuned for the booklet to be re-published entitled “130 Celebrated British Saints before the arrival of […]
Someone recently was asking if God’s church should be doing more judging. Short answer is yes we should do more judging, but in a balance of the rest of the gifts operating in His church bodies. Not everyone in the church body are called to be judges. Although for every one there is expected a […]
Restoring Our Civilization With Our Basis of Common Law or “The Rule of Law” text: legislators and judiciaries are not superior to “the People” by Dr Stephen M.K. Brunswick, Priory of Salem, Institute of Law (Legal disclaimer appended) At the end of the day, all reverts to the unanimously defined “rule of law”. Art. 1, […]
NOTE: Our opening broadcast got us a 7 day ban from youtube. Some one said the word covid and “new study” in the same sentence. So it was automatically labelled medical disinformation and so the show was removed and also the next weeks show. You can however find them on rumble (although quality not as […]
Celtic establishments of our Templar Order. For sincere inquirers, please Apply for membership. Topics: + Scottish Templar + Scottish land charters and titles prove the continuance. + Henry Sinclair + The Charter of Transmission + Founded a generation before Roman endorsement + East and West Rites used equally + Scottish Catholic represented a purer Orthodox […]
Robust Peace Plan of Ukrainian Nationalists, Intermarium or 3 Seas Initiative THE NON-NATO AND NON-RUSSIAN PEACE IN EASTERN EUROPE from Dr Stephen MK d’Guelph Brunswick, ThD, PhD Priory of Salem, Institute of Peace Studies I have been a witness to many great deeds done to ensure a stable peace in Eastern Europe and for this […]
As we repeatedly remember, Biblical artwork is commanded by God, we have another day to celebrate our great God of Israel, in His work through His obedient people. He is known in the glory of His Saints, His body of Christ (as is taught as all in full communion with the church, of which, his […]
A study of the Celtic church shows a lot of proof of the continuity of the Celto-Saxon Israel doctrine. Pastor Dan Gayman of COI gave a great sermon on this topic. You can watch this video for free on Rumble at: https://rumble.com/v23vems-our-genetic-israelite-heritage-by-pastor-dan-gayman.html Note: COI has moved to Rumble, as Youtube started censoring the content on very […]
The booklet was dedicated to the Queen’s chief medical officer, and Director General of the Medical department for the Navy, with this letter. A great area of physiological study being the facts that we refer to races and groups of people by their language. On first check he discovered 450 words in Hebrew have the […]
THE GLOBAL WARMING OF CHRIST. Praising Him at all times, melt the devil. God will melt the elements “with fervent heat”. This coming heat doesn’t come from our sun . However it says we will all be like day stars at his coming, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith […]
1John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” By Dr Stephen MK Brunswick This message is to help provide insight into the workings of God in the life of the believer. It helps to know how close His […]
Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1981, aspartame can now be found in close to 5,000 food and beverage products. Worldwide, 3,000 to 5,000 metric tons of aspartame are produced annually, and it’s widely consumed by adults, including pregnant women, and children.1
When you consume aspartame, it’s broken down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine — a precursor of monoamine neurotransmitters — and methanol, which may have “potent” effects on your central nervous system,2 Florida State University (FSU) College of Medicine researchers noted.
Their study, published in PNAS,3 raises more red flags about this synthetic sweetener. It not only linked aspartame to anxiety but suggests the mental health changes may be passed on to future generations.
Aspartame Induced Anxiety for Generations
The FDA’s recommended maximum daily intake value for aspartame is 50 milligrams per kilogram. The FSU study involved mice drinking water that contained aspartame at a dosage of approximately 15% of the FDA’s maximum daily intake for humans. The dose was equivalent to a human drinking six to eight 8-ounce cans of diet soda daily.4
The mice consumed the aspartame-laced water for 12 weeks, which led to “robust, dose-dependent anxiety.”5 “It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see,” study author Sara Jones said. “It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes.”6
The anxiety-like behaviors were evidenced during maze tests, and they persisted across multiple generations — passed down from male mice exposed to aspartame. When the mice were treated with the human anxiety drug diazepam, the anxiety-like behaviors disappeared. According to the study:7
“The anxiety was alleviated by a single administration of diazepam, a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA-A receptor, consistent with the key role of GABA-A receptors in the regulation of anxiety. RNA sequencing demonstrated significant changes in expression of genes associated with glutamatergic and GABA receptor signaling in the amygdala, a brain region associated with regulation of anxiety.
Perhaps even more strikingly, the anxiety phenotype, its response to diazepam, and changes in amygdala gene expression were transmitted from the aspartame-exposed male founders to their descendants.”
Aspartame Disrupts Gene Expression in the Brain
The study shows that exposure to aspartame disrupts gene expression in the amygdala brain region, which plays a role in the regulation of anxiety and fear responses.8 The disruptions persisted for at least two generations.
“What this study is showing is we need to look back at the environmental factors, because what we see today is not only what’s happening today, but what happened two generations ago and maybe even longer,” study co-author Pradeep Bhide, with FSU’s department of biomedical sciences, explained.9
Aspartame’s effects on the brain have been questioned for years. In 2018, researchers with Universiti Sains Malaysia found a connection between neurophysiological symptoms and aspartame, which can elevate levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid in the brain.10
Elevated levels of these compounds may inhibit the release and synthesis of a number of regulators of neurophysiological activity, including neurotransmitters, dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin. The researchers explained:11
“Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brains vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health.
… We reviewed studies linking neurophysiological symptoms to aspartame usage and conclude that aspartame may be responsible for adverse neurobehavioral health outcomes. Aspartame consumption needs to be approached with caution due to the possible effects on neurobehavioral health.”
Neurophysiological symptoms that may be linked to aspartame consumption include:12
Learning problems
Headache
Seizure
Migraines
Irritable mood
Anxiety
Depression
Insomnia
Aspartic acid, which aspartame is broken down into, is also thought to act as an excitatory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. Researchers have proposed since at least 2008 that consuming too much aspartame may cause certain mental disorders and result in “compromised learning and emotional functioning.”13
Caution may be especially warranted during pregnancy. In a study on newborn rats, those that consumed aspartame — via their lactating mothers that had been fed aspartame — experienced problems with development (weight loss) and behavioral changes suggestive of anxiety.14
Industry Spreads Myth That Artificial Sweeteners Are Safe
If you listen to industry front group the International Sweeteners Association, you’ll come away believing artificial sweeteners are not only safe but beneficial for weight management, diabetes and oral health.15 Even health officials and government groups have adopted the rhetoric that swapping sugar for artificial sweeteners is a good thing. As The Guardian reported:16
“Public health organizations around the world have largely accepted the sweetener industry’s claims, particularly when it comes to managing diabetes. One article on the NHS website quotes a dietitian who describes sweeteners as “a really useful alternative for people with diabetes who need to watch their blood sugar levels while still enjoying their favorite foods.””
Yet, a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by the World Health Organization revealed, “there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.”17
In fact, their study found, “There is suggestion of negative health effects with long-term use …”18 Cohort/case-control studies included in WHO’s systematic review revealed a range of concerning effects with artificial sweetener consumption, including increased:19
Obesity and body mass index
Type 2 diabetes
High fasting glucose
All-cause mortality
Cardiovascular disease mortality
Cardiovascular events
Stroke
High blood pressure
Bladder cancer
Premature birth
“In a startling turnaround,” The Guardian noted, “the WHO’s draft guidance stated that non-sugar sweeteners should ‘not be used as a means of achieving weight control or reducing risk of non-communicable diseases’ such as diabetes or heart disease. Suddenly, the whole rationale for sweeteners as a ‘healthy’ alternative looked much shakier.”20
Meanwhile, industry group The Calorie Control Council, whose members include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill, said it was “disappointed” in WHO’s findings and continued to insist that artificial sweeteners are useful for managing body weight and blood sugar levels.21
Heart Disease, Stroke Among the Risks
Along with risks to brain health, consuming aspartame (Equal), acesulfame potassium and sucralose (Splenda) puts your heart health at risk as well. In a nine-year study involving 103,388 people, researchers linked the products to cardiovascular disease and stroke.22
Researchers from France studied the detailed dietary records of adults with an average age of 42.23 Specifically, three non-consecutive days (two weekdays and one weekend day) of 24-hour dietary records were assigned at the study’s start and again every six months thereafter. Participants detailed all foods and beverages they consumed during that time, including quantities, brand names and even photographs to validate the recordings.24
The dietary records were further validated using blood and urinary biomarkers. Then, the researchers looked for any associations with cardiovascular diseases, including coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease, which refers to disorders that affect blood flow in the brain, such as stroke, aneurysms and vascular malformations.
Total artificial sweetener intake was associated with increased risk of overall cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cerebrovascular disease, the study found. Among the specific artificial sweeteners, aspartame was associated with an increased risk of stroke (defined in the study as cerebrovascular events), while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.25
“Our results suggest no benefit from substituting artificial sweeteners for added sugar on CVD outcomes,” the study found.26 “The findings from this large-scale prospective cohort study suggest a potential direct association between higher artificial sweetener consumption (especially aspartame, acesulfame potassium, and sucralose) and increased cardiovascular disease risk.”27
Liver Damage, Disturbances to Gut Microbes and More
It’s time to reexamine the widely parroted myth that artificial sweeteners can be part of a “healthy” diet. Their consumption can cause disturbances throughout your body. In research presented at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2022 annual meeting it was revealed that artificial sweeteners — specifically acesulfame potassium and sucralose — may interfere with your liver’s delicate detoxification process.
The study found that acesulfame potassium and sucralose inhibited the activity of P-glycoprotein, a “defense protein” that’s important for protecting organisms against environmental toxins.28 For comparison, the toxin DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) has also been found to inhibit P-glycoprotein (PGP), which is one reason why researchers have stated, “Even in small amounts, these contaminants could interfere with the human body’s natural ability to defend itself.”29
Artificial sweeteners including saccharine, sucralose, aspartame and acesulfame potassium may also lead to shifts in gut microbiota similar to those caused by antibiotics.30 Artificial sweeteners have also been shown to induce glucose intolerance by altering gut microbiota.31 Disruption of gut microbiota, in turn, has been linked to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and artificial sweeteners may also have a role to play in this condition.32
Make the Choice to Avoid Artificial Sweeteners
Video Link
To protect your health, avoiding artificial sweeteners is important. In addition to diet beverages, they’re found in thousands of other ultraprocessed products, including flavored yogurts, desserts, snacks and tabletop sweeteners. Even ketchup, salad dressing and medications often contain them.
Once you’ve decided to eliminate artificial sweeteners from your diet, read labels of any processed foods you buy to be sure they’re not hidden inside. If you’re tempted by a sweet craving, try eating something sour, like water with lemon juice or fermented vegetables. Sour taste may help diminish your desire for sweets.
I also recommend learning to use the psychological acupressure technique called the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). When you feel a craving coming on, use EFT to release the unhealthy urge. It’s an excellent tool to overcome the emotional component of food cravings, helping you say goodbye to artificial sweeteners for good.
There’s a hidden nugget in the “respect for marriage bill”. It basically says that churches won’t be forced to perform interracial marriages or to do anything that would condone them. Anyhow, at least it stays to the point that it’s about getting a marriage recognized in a foreign state that doesn’t recognize their marriage as […]
My analysis: As in each case, the hundreds of independent embalmers discovered the fibrous clots due to the fact the major arteries around the neck are blocked and constricted by the clots. As these structures are formed by an AI program (as explained on the vaccine producer’s own websites), it is plausible to conclude from […]
This article does not change the position of the Priory of Salem (ie from our courseware “Tree of Liberty Analysis” ), that stands regardless of the 14th Amendment’s validity. As the US Supreme Court continued keeping precedents upheld for more than 100 years after the 14th’s supposed passage, that via other guarantees continued to ban […]