Watchman News

During the summer months many take to the local swimming pools to cool off and enjoy time with family and friends. Families may spend time teaching their youngsters the life-saving skill of swimming1 or just hours splashing around and playing games in the water. However you spend your time in or near water, you don’t have to leave with more than you arrived with.
Unfortunately, public swimming pools and hot tubs may be hotbeds of unwanted activity. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia warns children may acquire impetigo, pseudomonas dermatitis and athlete’s foot from swimming in pools.2 The EHA Consulting Group adds exposure to Escherichia coli, cryptosporidium (crypto) and shigella to the group.3
The parasites and bacteria in the list — Escherichia coli, cryptosporidium, and shigella — trigger infectious diarrhea,4 which may be fatal in those who are immunocompromised.5,6 In particular, the CDC warns cryptosporidium is the leading cause of diarrhea outbreaks linked to water and the third linked to animal contact.7
Cryptosporidium outbreaks rising — third leading cause of diarrhea

In June 2019 the CDC8 reported that cryptosporidium outbreaks increased, on average, 13% each year between 2009 and 2017. During this period, 444 cryptosporidiosis outbreaks were recorded, in which 7,465 cases were found in 40 states and Puerto Rico.
The CDC9 defines an outbreak as two or more infections linked to a common source by location and time. These reports of cryptosporidium are voluntarily made to the CDC through the National Outbreak Reporting System. The first outbreak recorded was in 2009 and was the first year for NORS reporting. Of the reported infections, 287 were hospitalized and one person died.10
The most frequently recorded outbreaks associated with recreational water infections were from pools and water playgrounds.11 Of the 444 outbreaks, 35% were linked to treated swimming water; 15% were linked to contact with cattle (in particular, nursing calves); 13% were linked to child care settings and 3% were associated with drinking unpasteurized milk or apple cider.12
As with any food product, it is possible for raw milk to harbor microorganisms. When cattle are raised in concentrated feeding operations the milk must be pasteurized to reduce the possibility of foodborne illness, although it does not eliminate it.13,14,15
A recent study revealed the rate of outbreak in raw milk has effectively decreased by 74% since 2005,16 while leafy greens account for 46% of all foodborne illnesses, according to CDC data.17
Your risk of exposure to cryptosporidium is introduced by swallowing the parasite from contaminated water or uncooked foods. You can also come in contact with it from touching surfaces like bathroom fixtures, changing tables and diaper pails and then touching your hand to your mouth.18
Although not normally serious in those who have strong immune systems, it may be life-threatening for those who are immunocompromised. Those at higher risk19 include people with HIV/AIDS, those with inherited diseases affecting the immune system or cancer and transplant patients taking medications which suppress the immune system.
The CDC warns20 exposure during the peak summer season from a treated recreational water source may result in hundreds or thousands of cases, since one infected swimmer may excrete up to 108 oocysts in one diarrheal incident. The oocysts survive seven days or longer, even in the presence of recommended concentrations of chlorine. Considering that swimmers may use multiple pools, the risk is multiplied even further.
How does cryptosporidiosis develop?

Cryptosporidium begins life as a sporulated oocyst that enters the environment through the stool of an infected host.21 The oocysts are resistant to chlorine treatment and may be found in drinking water supplies. They may also withstand freezing temperatures.
After a suitable host has ingested the spores and the spores enter the intestinal tract, the oocyst releases sporozoites, the motile asexual form of the parasite, which develops inside the oocyst.22 The sporozoites dig into the epithelial lining of the lungs (if the spores were inhaled) or the intestines when the spores were ingested. The cells then undergo asexual reproduction leading to a sexual reproductive stage.23
After fertilization, the resulting zygote develops into one of two types of oocysts. A thick-walled oocyst exits the host into the environment or a thin-walled oocyst will autoinfect the host.24 The infectious thick-walled oocysts are passed through the feces of the host and the cycle begins again.
What are the symptoms of cryptosporidiosis?

An infection with cryptosporidium may result in a variety of symptoms, the most characteristic of which is diarrhea.25 In an immunocompetent individual, the diarrhea is self-limiting and usually resolves within three weeks. The illness may be associated with fever or fatigue, and while the small intestine is chiefly affected, cryptosporidiosis has been found in the pulmonary and biliary tracts.26
Specifically, the diarrhea is watery and may become explosive.27 Explosive diarrhea is a severe form of the condition during which the individual passes liquid and gas when the rectum fills with more than it may hold.28
Normally, the large intestine is the last stop for waste products traveling through the gastrointestinal tract and is where excess fluid is absorbed. However, during a diarrheal process, the intestines move too quickly for the large intestine to absorb fluid.29
Use precautions at the pool

It is important to use precautions before going into a public or private swimming pool. Diarrheal illnesses in swimmers may be passed through pool water. Anyone who currently has diarrhea or who may have been sick with in the last two months will risk contaminating the pool with bacteria or parasites.30 Microscopic feces may contaminate an entire pool or hot tub, making other swimmers sick if they ingest the water.31
While many public and private pool owners seek to maintain a healthy pool environment, it’s important to remember sporulated cryptosporidium are able to withstand the chlorine treatment. Giardia is another that may survive for up to 45 minutes in chlorinated pools.32
Precautions33 everyone should take before getting into the water include showering to remove as much dirt and bacteria before entering a pool. Importantly, don’t pee or poop in the water and don’t swallow the water. The CDC34 recommends taking children on bathroom breaks every hour, changing diapers away from the pool area and drinking plenty of fluids to stay hydrated.
The first line of defense is to keep those with any illness out of a swimming pool, public or private. While it is difficult to stop children from drinking pool water, it is considerably easier to prevent them from using toys like cups and buckets that might encourage them to put water in their mouth.
Test the water and report your symptoms

Another step you may take is to check inspection scores posted by the health department. This is similar to the way restaurants post scores of their sanitation practices. While many public pools are subject to testing, private pools usually are not. To test yourself, consider getting inexpensive test strips at big box stores.
In a survey conducted for the Water Quality and Health Council (WQHC), it was reported that 25% of adults said they would swim within one hour of having diarrhea, 50% never shower before going into a pool and 60% said they’ve swallowed pool water.35 The same survey reported that 72% of adults said they were unaware crypto was a parasite often spread by water.
In a press release from the CDC36 in 2016, the agency released inspection data collected in 2013 from five states with the most recreational water venues, including public pools and hot tubs. Data on 84,187 routine inspections found 1 in every 8 resulted in an immediate closure because of serious violations, while almost 80% identified at least one violation. The most common violations were improper pH, safety equipment issues and problems with disinfectant concentration.37
The CDC recommends38 that when visiting swimming pools you should complete your own inspection for some of the more common health and safety problems, including using test strips to determine chlorine and bromine concentrations. Make sure the drain at the bottom of the deep end is visible and check that the drain covers are secure and in good repair.
If a lifeguard is not on duty, make sure there is safety equipment nearby, such as a rescue ring.39 Since cryptosporidium may remain in the small intestine for as long as two months, during which you may pass the infection,40 if you’ve been sick with diarrhea, it is important to stay out of the pool and report your symptoms to the local or state health department, which reports to the CDC.41
Avoid hyperchlorination of your private pool or hot tub

Following an outbreak of cryptosporidium in Ohio,42 during which multiple cases were identified and linked to one swimming pool, researchers reported the offending pool was subsequently hyperchlorinated. A case-control study was launched to find the source of the outbreak; 150 confirmed and probable cases were identified and associated with the swimming pool.
Researchers found through this investigation that proactive measures may decrease transmission and prevent an outbreak. However, while hyperchlorination was used in this situation, there are dangerous compounds that form when chlorine is mixed with carbon-based compounds such as urine, poop and dirt.43
In one study,44 researchers mixed uric acid derived from human urine with chlorine and discovered it created two highly toxic detergent byproducts (DBPs): cyanogen chloride and trichloramine. Cyanogen chloride is classified as a chemical warfare agent with known pulmonary, heart and central nervous system toxicity.45 Trichloramine has been linked to lung damage in pool workers.46
The combination of chlorine and carbon compounds creates more than these two DBPs. In one study,47 researchers found spending just 40 minutes in a chlorinated pool was linked to DNA damage by these chemicals. The cancer risk of the DBPS is greater from skin exposure than from drinking water.48
Lack of cryptosporidium awareness may increase risk

Cryptosporidium has become one of the most common causes of waterborne disease.49 The parasite may be found throughout the U.S. and the world.50 Washing your hands thoroughly after using the bathroom or changing diapers becomes more urgent as you become aware that diseases are caused by a parasite that’s basically spread through exposure to feces.51
The parasite spreads when you touch your mouth with contaminated hands. Your hands become contaminated after touching objects that were perhaps first touched by infected hands.52 Objects such as stair railings, elevator buttons, door knobs and baby toys are all fair game.
You’re not always able to tell by looking if something has been in contact with fecal matter since only a minute amount is necessary to pass cryptosporidium spores. To reduce the spread of the parasite it’s important for you help to spread the word to friends and family and share why showering before entering the pool is one preventive step they may take.53
The parasite is notorious for being impervious to chlorine.54 In order to kill or inactivate it in drinking water, the water must be brought to a rolling boil for one minute. If you live at elevations above 6,500 feet, the water must be boiled for three minutes.55 The water should then be cooled and stored in a clean, sanitized glass container with a tight cover in the refrigerator.

Bayer has come up zero for 3 in the first lawsuits alleging that Roundup herbicide caused cancer, with the latest verdict ordering the chemical giant to pay $2 billion to its victims.
The verdict came from the third case, heard before the Alameda County Superior Court of California, in which a married couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, claim they both developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after regular use of Roundup. The pair had been using Roundup since the 1970s, stopping only a few years ago.
The jury heard 17 days of testimony and deliberated for less than two days before deciding in the Pilliods’ favor. Bayer, which is the largest seed and pesticide company in the world due to its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto in 2018, must now pay $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages.
Bayer to Pay $2 Billion, Guilty of ‘Malice, Oppression or Fraud’

The guilty verdict against Bayer includes a $1 billion payout to Alberta, who developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma brain cancer in 2015. Another $1 billion is owed to Alva, who was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which has spread from his bones to his spine and pelvis, in 2011. A total of $55 million in damages was awarded for past and future medical bills and pain and suffering.1
In order to award punitive damages, U.S. Right to Know reported, “The jury had to find that Monsanto ‘engaged in conduct with malice, oppression or fraud committed by one or more officers, directors or managing agents of Monsanto’ who were acting on behalf of the company.”2
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Brent Wisner, also stated, “From day one, Monsanto has never had any interest in finding out whether Roundup is safe.”3 Wisner based his request for punitive damages on the $892 million in gross profits Monsanto reported in 2017, and this was just from its agricultural chemicals division.
Bayer plans to appeal the verdict, and the damages may ultimately be reduced, as it’s generally upheld that punitive damages shouldn’t be more than 10 times higher than compensatory damages. Still, the $2 billion verdict sent a shockwave through the system.
Bayer shares have fallen about 45 percent since the Monsanto purchase, and dropped as much as 5% when the third verdict was announced.4,5 Now, with at least 13,400 lawsuits still looming from people who claim exposure to their glyphosate-containing Roundup herbicide caused them health problems, including cancer, the likelihood of a settlement grows stronger.
Some analysts have suggested settlement costs could exceed $14.6 billion, and while the company, according to Moody’s, may be able to absorb payments of $5.6 billion, if costs reach $22.4 billion it could be a blow to their credit rating.6
Bayer Lawyers Complained About Celebrities at Trial

During the third trial, the plaintiffs’ lawyers presented evidence including internal emails and advertising that showed Monsanto’s lack of regard for safety. One such advertisement showed a man killing backyard weeds while wearing shorts and a T-shirt to the tune of an Old West film, while Monsanto studies have recommended the chemical only be applied while wearing chemical boots and overalls.7
Internal Monsanto emails, meanwhile, mentioned ghostwriting scientific papers and payments to front groups, such as the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), to promote glyphosate’s safety.
Bayer attorneys, while maintaining that Roundup is safe, tried another tactic: distraction. They brought up completely unrelated “concerns” in front of jurors, like the fact that the plaintiffs’ attorneys had posed for a photo with environmental activists Daryl Hannah and Neil Young.8
The trials have revealed disturbing evidence against the chemical giant, including the fact that Monsanto allocated about $17 million in one year to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) scientists who spoke out against glyphosate.9
In March 2015, IARC determined glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen” based on evidence showing the popular weed-killing chemical can cause Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with “convincing evidence” it can also cause cancer in animals.
For instance, in 2017, Henry Miller was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California. Miller, falsely posing as a Stanford professor, promoted genetically engineered foods during this campaign.
In 2015, he published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking IARC’s findings after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Later it was revealed that Miller’s work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto.
Two Prior Roundup Lawsuits Led to Similar Payouts

In August 2018, a jury ruled in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson in a truly historic case against Monsanto. Johnson — the first of the cases pending against the chemical company — claimed Roundup caused his Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the court agreed.
Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson, although the award was later reduced to $78 million. Bayer asked the court to throw out the judgment in April 2019, going so far as to ask for reversal of the damages awarded based on the fact that Johnson is near death.10
In a second case, a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Bayer to pay more than $80 million. The jury agreed that Edwin Hardeman’s repeated exposures to Roundup, which he used to kill weeds on his 56-acre property, not only played a role in his cancer diagnosis but also that the company did not warn consumers that the product carried a cancer risk.11
The case was split into two phases, with jurors first finding the chemical to have caused the cancer on purely scientific grounds and the next phase finding that Bayer is liable for damages.12 Ultimately, Hardeman was awarded $75 million in punitive damages, $5.6 million in compensatory damages and $200,000 for medical expenses.13
The Government Has Bayer’s Back

In the midst of Bayer facing billions in damages due to glyphosate causing cancer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in their latest review of glyphosate, released a draft conclusion stating the chemical poses potential risks to mammals and birds that eat treated leaves, as well as risks to plants,14 but “no risks of concern” for people and “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”15
It’s not surprising, considering the EPA’s history of siding with and protecting Monsanto. As far back as 1983, when a Monsanto study revealed an increased cancer risk in mice exposed to glyphosate, the EPA asked for further studies, but the company simply refused. They claimed the study wasn’t a concern because one mouse not exposed to glyphosate also developed a tumor, and used this to support its safety.
Johnson’s lawyer, Timothy Litzenburg, told Rolling Stone, “They fought over that one mouse’s kidney for years, spent millions of dollars on experts, instead of just doing the test again. The EPA even offered a compromise — let’s just do a kidney and liver test. Monsanto said ‘no.’ It’s amazing how often they’re able to say no to the EPA.”16
In an opinion piece in The Guardian, Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, and Carey Gillam, an investigative journalist, ask the question we all should be asking:17

“Precisely because the chemical has been treated as so much safer than other pesticides, over the past 45 years glyphosate has become virtually ubiquitous: residues of the chemical have been documented in food, air, water and soil samples, as well as within the bodies of people who have never used the pesticide. The chemical has even been detected in raindrops.

It all raises this troubling question: if what has been touted as perhaps our ‘safest’ widely used pesticide actually causes cancer, what assurance do we have about the hundreds of other pesticides that the EPA has assured us are safe?”

Bayer’s Shareholders Are Outraged
At Bayer’s annual general meeting in Bonn, Germany, 55.5% of shareholders voted against ratifying the management’s actions, in large part due to the Monsanto acquisition.18 Some are calling the takeover “disastrous,”19 and investors had complained that Bayer was not revealing enough about its strategy for defeating upcoming lawsuits.
The vote was symbolic in nature and won’t legally change anything, but highlights the growing unrest within the company, which will only be heightened with the latest $2 billion verdict.
According to Bloomberg, “Markus Mayer, an analyst at Baader Bank AG, said the ruling increases the probability that Bayer becomes vulnerable to a takeover or a target for more activist investors like Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp. pushing for a split between agriculture and health assets.”20
Bayer was even caught making a hit list after French media raised accusations about Monsanto’s 2016 “stakeholder mapping project.” Monsanto had compiled lists of supportive and critical stakeholders, which may have violated both ethical principles and legal regulations. In a bit of damage control, Bayer posted the following:21

“Following an initial review, we understand that this initiative has raised concerns and criticism. This is not the way Bayer seeks dialogue with society and stakeholders. We apologize for this behavior.

Currently, we have no indication that the preparation of the lists under discussion violated any legal provisions. Bayer will ask an external law firm to investigate the project Monsanto commissioned and evaluate the allegations.

The law firm will also inform all of the persons on the lists of the information collected about them. Bayer will fully support the public prosecutor’s office in France in its investigations.”

Glyphosate Is Still Being Sprayed With Abandon

Nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate are used in the U.S. each year, with usage being heaviest in the Midwest due to extensive production of genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy. In fact, more than 90 percent of corn and soy grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered, and these ingredients are common in processed foods.22
The chemical was detected in more than 90 percent of pregnant women tested living in Central Indiana, and levels of the chemical were associated with shortened pregnancy lengths.23 Aside from cancer, in 2017, separate research revealed that daily exposure to ultra-low levels of glyphosate for two years led to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in rats.24
What’s more, glyphosate is in fact patented as an antibiotic, and when broken down, the word antibiotic means “anti-life.” In addition to promoting antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics,25 Roundup causes disturbances to a soil fungus called Aspergillus nidulans26 and may be causing serious damage to non-target plants.
Glyphosate is also a popular tool for desiccating (or accelerating the drying out) crops like wheat and oats. In testing done by Friends of the Earth (FOE), 100 percent of oat cereal samples tested positive for residues of glyphosate.27 If you want to avoid this chemical as much as possible, choose organic or biodynamic foods, and install a filter on your drinking water.
If you’re curious how much glyphosate is in your body, the Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.
Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

Are artificial sweeteners such as Splenda still part of your daily diet? If so, I would strongly recommend reconsidering. It’s important to realize that while artificial sweeteners have no (or very few) calories, they are still metabolically active,1 and not in a beneficial way.
For example, research2,3 published in the online version of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health August 21, 2018, shows sucralose — sold under brand names such as Splenda, Splenda Zero, Zero-Cal, Sukrana, Apriva, SucraPlus, Candys, Cukren and Nevella — is metabolized and accumulates in fat cells.
Remarkably, artificial sweeteners have become so ubiquitous, research4 published in the April 2019 issue of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety refers to them as an “emerging” environmental contaminant, noting they have “high water persistence.”
According to this paper, artificial sweeteners are chemically stable in the environment and water supplies appear to be at greatest risk for contamination. The researchers looked at 24 environmental studies assessing the presence of artificial sweeteners in the environment from 38 locations around the world, including Europe, Canada, the U.S. and Asia.
“Overall, the quantitative findings suggested that the occurrence of non-nutritive artificial sweeteners is present in surface water, tap water, groundwater, seawater, lakes and atmosphere,” the paper states. What the ultimate ramifications for wildlife, especially marine life, and human health might be are still anyone’s guess.
Artificial Sweeteners Promote Obesity, Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome
As explained in the 2016 paper,5 “Metabolic Effects of Non-Nutritive Sweeteners,” many studies have linked artificial sweeteners to an increased risk for obesity, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. This is in stark contrast to what you’re told by industry, which continues to promote artificial sweeteners as a way to lower your risk of those conditions.
The paper presents several mechanisms by which artificial sweeteners promote metabolic dysfunction:

1. They interfere with learned responses that contribute to glucose control and energy homeostasis — Studies have demonstrated that when sweet taste and caloric intake are mismatched, your body loses its ability to properly regulate your blood sugar.
2. They interact with sweet-taste receptors expressed in digestive system that play a role in glucose absorption and trigger insulin secretion, thereby inducing both glucose intolerance and insulin resistance, which raises your risk of obesity. Sweet taste without calories also increases appetite6 and subjective hunger ratings.7
3. They destroy your gut microbiota — A 2008 study8 revealed sucralose (Splenda) reduced gut bacteria by as much as 49.8%, preferentially targeting bacteria known to have important human health benefits. Consuming as few as seven little Splenda packets may be enough to have a detrimental effect on your gut microbiome.

More recent research,9 published in the journal Molecules in October 2018, confirmed and expanded these findings, showing that all currently approved artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k) disrupt the gut microbiome — in part by damaging the bacteria’s DNA, and in part by interfering with their normal activities.

Another 201810 found Splenda consumption may exacerbate gut inflammation and intensify symptoms in people with Crohn’s disease by promoting harmful gut bacteria. These results echoed those published in 2014,11 where they found Splenda may exacerbate symptoms of Crohn’s disease by augmenting “inflammatory activity at the biochemical level” and altering microbial-host interactions within the intestinal mucosa.

Similarly, research12 published in 2017 implicated sucralose in chronic liver inflammation by altering “the developmental dynamics of the gut microbiome.”

Why You Should Never Cook With Splenda
Splenda (sucralose) is frequently recommended for cooking and baking,13 and is often used in processed foods in which high heat was involved. This, despite the fact that scientists have warned about the dangers of heating sucralose for years.
In the 2013 paper,14 “Sucralose, a Synthetic Organochloride Sweetener: Overview of Biological Issues,” the authors state that “Cooking with sucralose at high temperatures … generates chloropropanols, a potentially toxic class of compounds.” This paper also warns the acceptable daily intake set for sucralose may in fact be hundreds of times too high to ensure safety.
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) recently issued a report15 on the available data on sucralose, confirming that cooking with sucralose is likely a terrible idea, as chlorinated compounds are formed at high temperatures. As reported by MedicalXpress:16

“When sucralose (E 955) is heated to temperatures higher than 120 degrees C a gradual — and with further continuously increasing temperature — decomposition and dechlorination of the sweetener occurs.
Temperatures of between 120 degrees C [248 degrees Fahrenheit] and 150 degrees C [302 degrees F] are possible during industrial manufacturing and processing of foods, and are also reached in private households during cooking and baking of foods containing sucralose.
This may lead to the formation of chlorinated organic compounds with a health-damaging potential, such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD), dibenzofurans (PCDF) and chloropropanols.”

Chloropropanols, while still poorly understood, are believed to have adverse effects on your kidneys and may have carcinogenic effects.17 One good reason to be suspicious of chloropropanols is because they’re part of a class of toxins known as dioxins, and dioxins are known to cause cancer and endocrine disruption.
The fact that sucralose creates toxic dioxins when heated is also a concern for those who use vaping liquid containing this artificial sweetener. A 2017 study18 found sucralose contributes sweet taste only when used in a cartridge system, and chemical analysis showed the use of a cartridge system also raised the concentration of sucralose in the aerosol.
I find it interesting that these studies are now confirming what I suspected and published in my book, published over 10 years ago — “Sweet Deception” — which was an expose on Splenda.
Sucralose Shown to Have Carcinogenic Potential
Research19 published in 2016 in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health tested the carcinogenic potential of sucralose by adding it to mouse feed, at various concentrations, starting at 12 days of gestation and continuing throughout their natural life span.
Results showed male mice experienced a significant dose-related increase in malignant tumors and hematopoietic neoplasias (cancer of the blood, bone marrow and the lymphatic system). The dosages tested were 0, 500, 2,000, 8,000 and 16,000 parts per million (ppm). The worst results occurred in males given 2,000 ppm and 16,000 ppm. According to the authors:

“These findings do not support previous data that sucralose is biologically inert. More studies are necessary to show the safety of sucralose, including new and more adequate carcinogenic bioassay on rats. Considering that millions of people are likely exposed, follow-up studies are urgent.”

Pregnant Women Beware
More recent research,20 published in 2018, revealed the artificial sweeteners sucralose and acesulfame-potassium transfer into breast milk — a crucial fact that pregnant women need to be mindful of, considering the harmful effects of these compounds. To determine whether the sweeteners could transfer into breast milk, the researchers enrolled 34 women who were exclusively breastfeeding.
Each of the women drank 12 ounces of Diet Rite Cola, which contains 68 milligrams (mg) of sucralose and 41 mg of acesulfame-potassium, before breakfast. Habitual use of artificial sweeteners was also assessed via a diet questionnaire. Breast milk samples were collected before ingestion and every hour thereafter for six hours. As reported by the authors:

“Owing to one mother having extremely high concentrations, peak sucralose and acesulfame-potassium concentrations following ingestion of diet soda ranged from 4.0 to 7387.9 ng/mL and 299.0 to 4764.2 ng/mL, respectively.”

This is believed to be the first time researchers have demonstrated that infants are in fact exposed to artificial sweeteners even when exclusively breastfed (if the mother consumes them). An accompanying commentary21 by pediatric experts notes:

“NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] were present in the breast milk of all subjects in physiologically significant amounts, and … at concentrations well above the taste thresholds. Why is this important?
NNS or non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NCAS) are ubiquitous in the modern diet … Despite the approval by the FDA and European Food Safety Authority, concerns, admittedly largely unproven, persist about their safety … The concerns about NNS are three-fold.
First, that they may adversely alter taste preferences. Second, that the ultimate effect may be contrary to what is intended and their ingestion may increase food consumption. Third, that they may adversely alter the gut bacterial microbiome and its metabolites.
All of these concerns are magnified with early exposure in life. The evidence to support these concerns is either inductive or based on experimental models and emerging human data.”

‘Diet’ Beverages Linked to Increased Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack
Another 2018 study22 by the American Heart Association (AHA) found that, compared to drinking none or just one “diet” drink per week, women over 50 who drank two or more artificially sweetened beverages per day had a:23

31% increased risk for ischemic stroke
29% increased risk of coronary heart disease
23% increased risk of all types of stroke
16% increased risk of early death

The risk is particularly high for women with no previous history of heart disease, those who are obese and/or African-American women. The study included more than 81,714 women from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, a longitudinal study of the health of 93,676 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50 and 79. The mean follow-up time was close to 11.9 years. According to the authors:

“In women with no prior history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus, high consumption of ASB [artificially-sweetened beverages] was associated with more than a twofold increased risk of small artery occlusion ischemic stroke … High consumption of ASBs was associated with significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke in women with body mass index ≥30 …”

In an accompanying editorial,24 “Artificial Sweeteners, Real Risks,” Hannah Gardener, assistant scientist in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, and Dr. Michell Elkind at Columbia University, suggest drinking pure water instead of no-calories sweetened beverages, as it is by far the safest and healthiest low-calorie drink there is.

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.

Sucralose Linked to Liver, Kidney and Thymus Damage

Other recent research25 published in the journal Morphologie found sucralose caused “definite changes” in the liver of treated rats, “indicating toxic effects on regular ingestion.” The researchers warn these findings suggest sucralose should be “taken with caution to avoid hepatic damage.”
In other words, regularly using Splenda could damage your liver. Here, adult rats were given a much higher (yet nonlethal) oral dose of sucralose — 3 grams (3,000 mg) per kilo body mass per day for 30 days, after which the animals’ livers were dissected and compared to the livers of unexposed controls. According to the authors:

“Experimental rats showed features of patchy degeneration of hepatocytes along with Kupffer cells hyperplasia, lymphocytic infiltration, sinusoidal dilatation and fibrosis indicating a definite hepatic damage on regular ingestion of sucralose. Sinusoidal width was also found to be increased in experimental animals as compared to controls.”

Studies have also linked sucralose consumption to liver and kidney enlargement26,27 and kidney calcification.28,29 Another organ affected by sucralose is your thymus, with studies linking sucralose consumption to shrinkage of the thymus (up to 40%30,31) and an increase in leukocyte populations (immune system cells) in the thymus and lymph nodes.32
Sucralose Safety Has Been Repeatedly Questioned

At the time of this writing, there are 27,400 references to sucralose in the scientific search engine Google Scholar, so there’s no shortage of studies to review if you’re curious. Here’s a small sampling of papers raising questions about the safety of this artificial sweetener.

Artificial Sweetener Such as Sucralose May Promote Inflammation in Human Subcutaneous Fat-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, 2017 33 — Research presented at GW Annual Research Days in 2017 shows sucralose consumption caused an increase in superoxide accumulation and cellular inflammation.
The sweetener also Increased expression of a specific sweet taste receptor. According to the researchers, “upregulation of adipogenic genes … cultured in near physiological concentrations of sucralose, indicate possible causality between increased fat deposition and sweetener use.”

The Non-Caloric Sweeteners Aspartame, Sucralose and Stevia sp. Induce Specific but Differential Responses to Compartmentalized Adipose Tissue Accumulation, 201734 — In this study, consumption of sucralose resulted in weight gain, elevated blood glucose and body fat accumulation.

Sucralose Activates an ERK1/2–Ribosomal Protein S6 Signaling Axis, 201635 — Sucralose was found to stimulate insulin secretion much like glucose, but through completely different and poorly understood pathways. According to the authors, these findings “will have implications for diabetes.”

Changes in the Expression of Cell Surface Markers in Spleen Leukocytes in a Murine Model of Frequent Sucralose Intake, 201636 — This study found frequent sucralose intake may affect your immune function. According to the authors:

“Our results show a decrease in the frequency of B lymphocyte population and T lymphocytes in comparison to the control group. In B and T lymphocytes the analysis of co-stimulatory molecules show a lower frequency compared to the control group. The immune response depends on the differentiation and activation of cellular populations.
We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of commercial sucralose might be affecting the immune response by modifying the frequencies of cellular populations, as well as the expression of co-stimulatory and inhibitory molecules … by decreasing the ability of co-stimulation between B an T lymphocytes, with a probable effect on the immune response.
It is necessary to further determine if sucralose intake affects the efficiency of the immune response.”

Popular Sweetener Sucralose as a Migraine Trigger, 200637 — As noted by the authors, “This observation of a potential causal relationship between sucralose and migraines may be important for physicians to remember this can be a possible trigger during dietary history taking.
Identifying further triggers for migraine headaches, in this case sucralose, may help alleviate some of the cost burden (through expensive medical therapy or missed work opportunity) as well as provide relief to migraineurs.”

Healthier Sugar Substitutes

Two of the best sugar substitutes are Stevia and Lo Han Kuo (also spelled Luo Han Guo). Stevia, a highly sweet herb derived from the leaf of the South American stevia plant, is sold as a supplement. It’s completely safe in its natural form and can be used to sweeten most dishes and drinks.

Lo Han Kuo is similar to Stevia, but is my personal favorite. I use the Lakanto brand vanilla flavor which is a real treat for me. The Lo Han fruit has been used as a sweetener for centuries, and is about 200 times sweeter than sugar.

A third alternative is to use pure glucose, also known as dextrose. Dextrose is only 70% as sweet as sucrose, so you’ll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than regular sugar. It is safer than regular sugar, which is 50% fructose.

Still, it’s well worth it for your health as it does not contain any fructose whatsoever. Contrary to fructose, glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is a far safer sugar alternative.

It may surprise you to learn that celery is part of the same family of plants, called Apiaceae, as carrots and parsley, but it’s probably not a surprise that it’s also related to celeriac, a root vegetable.
Most people think of celery as a pleasingly crunchy veggie that goes well with carrots and radishes on party platters. But recent studies have revealed the pale green stalks, aka Apium graveolens, also have a substantial array of health benefits, as do the tiny seeds and even the juice, in spite of the fact that the stalks are fully 95 percent water.
Celery juice, it turns out, is touted as one of the latest super beverages, and according to The Guardian,1 as of October 2018, it’s quadrupled in sales compared to kale juice, which apparently is so 15 minutes ago. In fact, sales in the U.S. have recently increased by 454 percent, and the craze is moving to Britain.
The Celery Juice Phenomenon

The phenomenon is attributed to Anthony William, who calls himself the originator of the Global Celery Juice Movement since he’s successfully managed to market it as “a healing tool for every symptom and condition imaginable.”2 William says the most benefits come from drinking it in the morning on an empty stomach, not mixing it with other substances and waiting 15 minutes to eat anything else.
The benefits he lists extend to “autoimmune conditions, acne, eczema, psoriasis, migraines, acid reflux, addictions, anxiety, depression, fatigue, weight issues, bloating (and) constipation.”3
Scientists believe celery has benefits for your digestive tract and cardiovascular system, and the seeds have been used as a natural pain reliever. One of the most advantageous compounds in celery is apigenin, a molecule that is gaining interest for possible cancer-fighting properties.4
Apigenin is a flavonoid found in many herbs, including parsley, thyme and chamomile. One reason it’s so significant is because it enhances the neurons in your brain. In fact, one study5 showed that when apigenin was applied to a petri dish containing human stem cells, 25 days later the stem cells had turned into neurons.
Further, the synapses connecting the neurons were “stronger and more sophisticated,” something that didn’t occur without the apigenin. The upshot is that stronger neurons bolster several aspects of your brain function. In addition to growing new brain cells, apigenin has been associated with fighting cancer, particularly breast cancer.6
This compound has also been linked to reduced damage to your body due to inflammation. Eating celery and other foods with apigenin on the ingredients list was observed in a study published in PloS One to restore immune balance even in the presence of inflammation, the study explains:

“Apigenin inhibits LPS (lipopolysaccharide)-induced inflammatory response through multiple mechanisms in macrophages. These results provided important scientific evidences for the potential application of apigenin as a therapeutic agent for inflammatory diseases.”7

According to the Online Textbook of Bacteriology,8 lipopolysaccharides are associated with the outer membrane of E. coli, salmonella, shigella and other gram-negative pathogens. In short, apigenin reduces the toxic effects, and “Exert[s] effective anti-inflammatory activity in vivo by reducing LPS-induced expression … thereby restoring immune balance,” an Ohio State University study9 shows.
Health Benefits of Eating Celery

There’s a healthy dose of vitamin K in celery, necessary to provide healthy blood clotting and to help prevent arterial calcification, and providing 37 percent of the dietary reference intake (DRI) in a single cup. The next highest nutrient celery provides is 11 percent of the molybdenum, a trace mineral that’s critical for the detoxification of heavy metals. I’ve written before about how molybdenum functions as a cofactor for four crucial enzymes:

Sulfite oxidase

Xanthine oxidase 

Aldehyde oxidase 

Mitochondrial amidoxime reducing component (mARC)

Other nutrients in celery include vitamins A and C, folate and potassium, and it’s a rich source of antioxidants, phenolic acids, phytosterols, flavones and flavonols, along with several more obscure phytonutrients.
Again, not only is eating celery good for you, the seeds are, too. Studies indicate that while celery may be a simple food, it has a complex chemical makeup with components able to produce a relaxing, dilating effect to help lower your blood pressure.10 The featured study explains:

“Celery seed extracts have antihypertensive properties, which appears to be attributable to the actions of its active hydrophobic constitutes such as NBP (n-butylphthalide) and can be considered as an antihypertensive agent in chronic treatment of elevated BP.”11

Studies indicate that 3nB is identified as a compound useful in managing brain-based vascular diseases, including stroke and vascular dementia.12 There have been studies that suggested viable blood pressure reduction in rats, such as one published in the Journal of Medicinal Food,13 but subsequent human studies have shown that celery seed extract does indeed reduce hypertension levels.
Case in point: For the 30 study participants with mild to moderate hypertension who took the prescribed 75 milligram (mg) doses of celery seed extract twice a day for six weeks, the results were measurable: Mean blood pressure baseline measurements dropped 8.2 mm Hg systolic and 8.5 diastolic from baseline. However, to realize a similar benefit, you’d have to eat about 50 pounds or 530 celery stalks.14
Celery Compounds That Combat Cancer and Stimulate Neurogenesis

Regarding neurogenesis, apigenin may also stimulate the growth and development of nerve cells in mice and improve their learning and memory capabilities, as well as be useful for the treatment of neurological diseases, disorders and injuries, according to a study15 conducted at the Dublin City School of Biotechnology in Ireland.
Besides apigenin in celery, there’s also the flavonoid luteolin, which has been shown to have anticancer properties. This takes place, the study authors explain,16 because the presence of luteolin renders cancer cells more vulnerable to therapy agents. Apigenin was also shown to inhibit growth in four pancreatic cancer cell lines.17
Additionally, researchers in 2017 found that luteolin may also be effective in reducing women’s’ risk of developing metastasis from triple-negative breast cancer. Salman Hyder, professor in tumor angiogenesis and biomedical sciences at the College of Veterinary Medicine and Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, tested cells in petri dishes and explained:

“Triple-negative breast cancers are cancer cells that lack three receptors targeted by current chemotherapy regimens. Because of this lack of receptors, common cancer drugs can’t ‘find’ the cells, and doctors must treat the cancer with extremely aggressive and highly toxic treatment strategies.
Women with this type of breast cancer also frequently develop metastatic lesions that originate from drug-resistant cells … (They’re) highly mobile in the body, which helps them metastasize to other organs throughout the body. We found that luteolin inhibits that migration and also can kill cancer cells.”18

Other benefits are suggested by historical literature in regard to the effectiveness of celery. Its compounds may soothe your nervous system, alleviate pain and treat an array of maladies such as arthritis, gout, water retention, muscle spasms, colds and flu, although scientists say more evidence is needed to verify these uses.
Digestive Tract Advantages From Celery

Celery has long been known to be a great snack because it’s not only crunchy and has a mild flavor, but because the fiber it offers is substantial. Live Science asserts:

“Fiber is well-known for its digestive benefits. It helps keep your bowel movements regular, thereby reducing constipation; helps keep your bowels healthy, and aids in weight maintenance … One cup of celery provides about 6 percent of your daily fiber needs. Some recent research suggests that the antioxidants in celery could also help improve stomach lining and reduce the risk of gastric ulcers.”19

Things To Be Aware of Regarding Celery Consumption

When eating celery, there are some things to be aware of. First, celery is a healthy snack and/or food eaten raw, but how it’s cooked can affect its nutritional attributes. Studies show it loses between 38 percent and 41 percent of its antioxidants when boiled or blanched, which is a significant amount, but when it’s steamed for about 10 minutes, it retains between 83 percent and 99 percent of its antioxidant nutrients.20
Medical News Today notes that celery belongs to a small group of foods that can cause a severe allergic reaction, and this can lead to a potentially fatal condition known as anaphylactic shock, and that “those who are allergic to the celery should be cautious and check food labels, as even small traces of celery can cause a reaction.”21
Many natural foods have toxic elements if eaten raw in very large quantities and all at one time, and celery is one of them. In fact, it could cause goiters, which are swellings on the neck that could lead to breathing problems and even hypothyroidism.
“Celery can act as a goitrogen if eaten in very large quantities, especially if it’s not cooked … This is because great amounts of uncooked celery can interfere with the process of iodine functioning in the thyroid,” SF Gate noted.22
In addition, many plants contain natural compounds known as psoralens that could increase your sensitivity to ultraviolet light, and celery is one that may cause a skin reaction or rash if you should get drops of celery juice on your skin and go out into the sun within 12 to 36 hours.
In fact, the rash or hyperpigmentation could cause a burning sensation and last three to five days, or even months, according to a Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings article published in 2000.23
One more thing: Pesticides have become a big business and, unfortunately, substances such as glyphosate, among other pesticides, are applied by farmers to the tune of nearly 5 billion pounds worldwide, and 300 million pounds applied on U.S. farmland. A class of pesticides called organophosphates (OPs) also has been implicated for brain-destroying health risks, such as attention and memory deficits, autism and lower IQs.
Unfortunately, celery is No. 10 on the Environmental Working Group’s notorious Dirty Dozen List24 of the fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide residue. Organic foods are always preferred over the conventionally grown and sold at your local supermarket due to the use of harmful pesticides.
If organic celery is not available or you’re just not sure, washing your fruits and vegetables before eating them is recommended, even if they will be peeled before it’s eaten. Better yet, grow your own celery, organically.

Scientists around the world have been keenly studying the attributes of a root plant known as rhodiola, which is a tough perennial that produces beautiful, chrysanthemum-like flowers. Beyond its attractive appearance, though, rhodiola has a number of highly valuable qualities for health.
Rhodiola thrives in cold mountainous regions and barren sea cliffs such as those in Northern Asia, Europe and North America. Closely related species also used in traditional medicine include Rhodiola imbricata, Rhodiola algida and Rhodiola crenulata.
Because its history harkens as far back as the Vikings, rhodiola has several different monikers. Besides the scientific name Rhodiola rosea, it’s also known as golden root, rose root, king’s crown and hóng jǐng tiān, depending on where it’s found.
For millennia, people familiar with the plant used its extracts to improve strength and virility. For instance, Siberian brides were given rhodiola sprigs to increase their physical endurance to face long, sub-zero winters, fend off anxiety and depression, and increase fertility.1
A renowned Greek text known as De Materia Medica, written in 77 A.D., describes numerous medicinal properties from the plant’s stem. According to Swedish Medical Center,2 rhodiola was long ago integrated into the traditional medicines of Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Russia.
Recent history supports many of even the most ancient claims. Introduced to a body that’s flagging due to prolonged or higher-than-normal stress, rhodiola has been proven to relieve both physical and mental fatigue, soothe frazzled nerves and even improve the ability to concentrate.3
Wide-Ranging Benefits of Rhodiola Impact Your Body and Mind

Rhodiola boasts an extensive list of vitality-boosting abilities found in the stem, roots and leaves of the plant, such as boosting your immunity from disease, positively impacting brain, organ, nerve, sexual4 and neurological functions, and helping to prevent damage to all of the above.5,6,7,8,9 Some studies suggest it can even increase your lifespan.10 One study notes:

“Studies on isolated organs, tissues, cells and enzymes have revealed that Rhodiola preparations exhibit adaptogenic effect including, neuroprotective, cardioprotective, antifatigue, antidepressive, anxiolytic, nootropic, life-span increasing effects and CNS (central nervous system) stimulating activity.

A number of clinical trials demonstrate that repeated administration of R. rosea extract SHR-5 exerts an antifatigue effect that increases mental performance (particularly the ability to concentrate in healthy subjects), and reduces burnout in patients with fatigue syndrome.

Encouraging results exist for the use of Rhodiola in mild to moderate depression, and generalized anxiety. Several mechanisms of action possibly contributing to the clinical effect have been identified for Rhodiola extracts.”11

One way the compounds in rhodiola are beneficial is that they support your body’s ability to stave off another type of stress: oxidative. It also helps fight infection and burn energy, while simultaneously helping to decrease inflammation, increase energy, prevent fat buildup, protect your heart and lungs, reduce pain and improve your mood.
The latter benefit explains why rhodiola is known as a nootropic, described as a substance that enhances brain function. Rhodiola has its own benefits in this regard, as it stimulates brain activity and has been found to be directly responsible for activating four important neurotransmitters:

Norepinephrine
Serotonin
Dopamine
Acetylcholine

Each of these is significant as depression is strongly linked to low dopamine. Studies note that working together, these neurotransmitters are important for memory, concentration and learning.12 Rhodiola also improves wakefulness and reduces both physical and mental fatigue, as well as anxiety.
Further, rhodiola may be a possible safe alternative to SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs)13 or antidepressants such as sertraline, also known as Zoloft.14
The Powerful Benefits of the Rhodiola Compound Salidroside

Where do all these incredible benefits come from? The rose-like fragrance is due to the presence of geraniol essential oil, but more than 140 different and powerful organic compounds related to health have been identified in rhodiola. Three of the most important, noted for having adaptogenic properties (meaning they can provide different effects depending on what your body needs) are:

Salidroside, also known as rhodioloside, considered by many experts to be the plant’s most important bioactive molecule, and likely responsible for its protective and stimulant effects on the brain.15
Rosavin, which has many of the same properties and mechanisms as salidroside, but requires a higher dose to produce the same effect.16
Tyrosol, which is one of the antioxidant elements in rhodiola extracts, but while it may contribute to its benefits, it often goes unlabeled on commercial supplements.17

One study shows salidroside helps restore the balance between free radicals and antioxidants, and protects your brain against poor blood flow and subsequent stroke (aka ischemia).18
Due to its antibacterial strength, salidroside has also been used successfully to treat acne. While standard acne treatments can trigger antibiotic resistance and even worse problems, salidroside can get rid of the thin, slimy layer of bacterial cells known as biofilm that is difficult to eradicate.19
Its antioxidant activity may help fight aging, although the mechanisms are not well-studied in humans. It is well-known, though, that high oxidative stress underlies many chronic diseases and age-related health problems.20 
Pathways and Mechanisms Connected to Salidroside

How does it manage all these benefits? It turns out that salidroside is responsible for the activation of several crucial pathways to exert many of the rhodiola plant’s most important benefits.
One is the Nrf2 pathway, a genetic pathway that turns on protective genes, increases antioxidant proteins and protects cells, leading the authors of one study to posit that salidroside may be useful in treating ischemic stroke.21 Rhodiola also activates AMPK, which boosts antioxidant protein production, prevents insulin resistance, reduces inflammation, controls your blood sugar and prevents fat buildup in your liver.22,23
Cytokines are signaling molecules secreted by certain immune system cells, which affect other cells, including those in relation to inflammation and immunity. Referred to as the “bad guys” that are high in chronic inflammation, in acute infections, the right balance of cytokines are needed to mount a successful attack. However, Th1 dominance may occur for people with chronic inflammation and/or autoimmune diseases when this pathway is over-activated.
Certain inflammatory cytokines may be selectively decreased when rhodiola extracts are applied, such as when one study showed that mice injected with E. coli, then given a large dose of rhodiola extract, experienced “significantly” lower kidney and brain inflammation.24
Rhodiola’s Effects on Stress

Here’s one way rhodiola can be worth its weight in gold for the way it boosts your energy and allows you to thrive even in the midst of stress:

“Stress may allow the body more energy at the moment, but this is not a sustainable energy solution. After prolonged periods of stress, the very processes and neurochemicals needed for efficient energy are compromised.

For example, dopamine and serotonin keep the mind focused and positive for hours on end and fight off tension and impulsiveness. Stress robs the body of these neurotransmitters essential to extended thought processing.

It also interferes with the thyroid and its stimulating hormones and decreases the body’s metabolism. Try and be productive without the body’s energy assimilation process in proper function — you won’t last long.”25

Salidroside also acts on the HPA axis — the hypothalamus, pituitary gland and adrenal gland — comprising a system of glands that control many of the body’s stress responses — such as the release of cortisol, another study notes.26
Salidroside is an example of an adaptogen that facilitates the expression of Hsp70, a “heat-shock protein” that helps cells adapt to repeated exposure to the same stressors.27 It may also increase tolerance to both emotional and physical stress, decrease Hsp70 expression in stomach cancer cells, specifically related to its effect on colon cancer cells, as the extract also:

“Inhibits cell proliferation and induces cell apoptosis in various cells and cell lines, including human urinary bladder cancer cell lines, breast cancer cell lines, colorectal cancer cells, gastric cancer cells, glioma cells, lung cancer cells, and sarcoma.”28

For example, osteoporosis, a disease that causes bone density to decrease, is partially caused by oxidative stress. Salidroside’s antioxidant effects may help prevent osteoporosis and maintain bone health later in life. Salidroside’s antioxidant effects may even augment future bone health.29
Rhodiola Caveats, Disclosures and Supplementation

Use caution in combining rhodiola with certain prescription medications. Monoamine oxidase inhibitors shouldn’t be combined with substances that increase dopamine or norepinephrine.30
Don’t take rhodiola with SSRIs, drugs for high blood pressure, diabetes CYP2C9 substrates, phenytoin and warfarin or antidepressants without the advice of your physician. At least one study has found that rhodiola may reduce chronic fatigue symptoms at doses of 400 milligrams (mg) day, with few or no side effects.31
Rhodiola rosea supplements come in the form of caplets, tea or liquid extracts, but high-quality extracts should contain at least 3 percent rosavins and 1 percent salidroside. Other species of rhodiola, such as R. crenulata, might have much higher concentrations of salidrosides.32

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 Evidence of 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 the Primary 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

Heart Problems, Neurological Disorders and Infertility Are Risks of EMF Exposure
While an estimated 80,000 U.S. men, women and children are diagnosed with a brain tumor each 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 percent reduction in sperm motility and a 9 percent 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 Food and Drug Administration 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, and at Power Levels Below FCC Limits
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.

Telling Trend: Silicon Valley Founders Don’t Want Their Own Kids to Use the Technology They Created
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