Watchman News

By Dr. Mercola
Worldwide, 5 billion people now have cellphones, which represents about two-thirds of the people on the planet.1 Since their inception, concerns have been raised that holding these radiation-emitting devices so close to our bodies, for so many hours a day, could cause health problems, including cancer. One of the latest studies to date, conducted in England and involving an analysis of more than 79,000 malignant brain tumors, has only added to the accumulating evidence that cellphones may be carcinogenic.
The study, published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health, revealed a rise in glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive brain tumor, in England from 1995 to 2015.2 Incidence rates more than doubled from 2.4 to 5 per 100,000 people during the study period, an increase the study authors say cannot be fully explained by random chance or improvement in diagnostic techniques.
“The percentage rise is similar across the age groups, which suggests widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible,” according to the researchers, with cellphones being a prime culprit. Other sources of radiation exposure, such as X-rays, CT scans and testing of atomic bombs, were also listed as potential causative factors, but Alasdair Philips, the study’s lead author and a trustee of Children with Cancer UK, told CNN, “ … cellphones seem like really they’re the most likely cause.”3
$25 Million Cellphone Studies Yield ‘Clear’ Evidence of Cancer Link
The finding that glioblastoma multiforme cancers have more than doubled in England in the last two decades — a time when cellphone usage has skyrocketed — comes on the heels of evidence suggesting radiation from cellphones may cause tumors in rats. The findings stem from two government-funded studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program currently under the umbrella of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.4
The $25 million research involved both mice and rats, which were exposed to cellphone radiation for nine hours a day for two years — close to average life span for these rodents. Most concerning, male rats were more likely to develop tumors in their heart known as malignant schwannomas, which are, according to The New York Times, “similar to acoustic neuromas, a benign tumor in people involving the nerve that connects the ear to the brain, which some studies have linked to cellphone use.”5
In making their conclusions, NTP uses the labels “clear evidence,” “some evidence,” “equivocal evidence” and “no evidence.” They found “clear evidence” that exposure to cellphone radiation led to heart tumors in the male rates, along with “some evidence” that it caused brain tumors in the rats.6 In addition, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) press release explained:7

“Researchers also noted increases in an unusual pattern of cardiomyopathy, or damage to heart tissue, in exposed male and female rats. … The reports also point out statistically significant increases in the number of rats and mice with tumors found in other organs at one or more of the exposure levels studied, including the brain, prostate gland, pituitary gland, adrenal gland, liver and pancreas.”

Despite this, they deemed the findings equivocal, which means they believed it was unclear whether the increases in tumors were due to the exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR), and noted that they used levels and duration of RFR exposure that were much greater than what people would typically be exposed to with cellphone use.
Yet, a lifetime exposure study published by the highly respected Ramazzini Institute in Italy duplicated NTP’s findings, showing a clear link between cellphone radiation and schwannomas — despite using power levels that were up to 1,000 times lower than those used in the NTP studies.8
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified cellphones as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen,” but the Ramazzini researchers are urging the IARC to re-evaluate this. According to Fiorella Belpoggi, director of research at the Ramazzini Institute and the study’s lead author, radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cellphones should probably be classified as a “probable” human carcinogen rather than a “possible” carcinogen.9
Scientific Advisory Panel Concludes Cellphones May Cause Greater Risk Than Initially Acknowledged
When the NTP studies’ draft report was first released, it was largely downplayed by public health agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Cancer Society, which stated the results were inconclusive. A scientific advisory panel, which met to review the research, was expected to greenlight the largely whitewashed conclusions but ended up coming up with a much starker warning that cellphones can be clearly linked to cancer in rats.
One thing that caught the panel’s eye was the type of tumor that occurred in the rats; heart tissue tumors are not only rare in rats but also are the same form of cancer that’s previously been seen in some people who’ve used cellphones at high power settings for years, according to NTP senior scientist John Bucher.10
In addition to finding that exposure to RF from cellphones can cause heart tissue cancer in male rats, the panelists concluded that cellphone radiation may also be linked to brain cancer in rats. Ronald Melnick, a retired NTP scientist who was part of the team that created the study’s design nearly a decade ago, told The News & Observer the findings “should most likely lead to a reduction in exposure limits” and could prompt public officials “not to promote the use of some of these radio-frequency emitting devices for kids.”11
Study After Study Indicating Real Danger of Cellphones

The ramifications of an increased risk of cancer from cellphone use are immense on a global scale. The primary origin of disease processes attributed to electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation exposure is related to mitochondrial damage triggered by the reactive nitrogen species peroxynitrites. Devices that consistently emit EMF radiation at levels that damage your mitochondria include your cellphone, cellphone towers, Wi-Fi router and modems.
An increase in peroxynitrites in your body has been associated with an increased level of systemic inflammation and, most importantly, mitochondrial dysfunction. Please see my interview with Martin Pall, Ph.D., above, who discovered this mechanism of harm, for a more in-depth discussion of this vital leading-edge information. Pall published research12 showing that low-frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) — channels in the outer membrane of your cells.13
Once activated, the VGCCs open up, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell, which activates nitric oxide (NO). NO is the only molecule in your body produced at high enough concentrations to outcompete other molecules for superoxide and is a precursor for peroxynitrite.14 These potent oxidant stressors are thought to be a root cause for many of today’s chronic diseases and may be an even bigger concern than brain tumors.
According to Pall’s theory, the physical locations where VGCCs are the densest are indicative of the diseases you might expect from chronic excessive exposure to EMFs. As it turns out, the highest density of VGCCs are found in your nervous system, the pacemaker in your heart and in male testes. As a result, EMFs are likely to contribute to neurological and neuropsychiatric problems, heart and reproductive problems.
Does Coming 5G Raise More Concerns?
You may have heard about the 5G, or “5th Generation,” wireless network that the industry is rallying behind, touting it as a way to create faster internet and streaming services and provide better cellphone coverage. 5G relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave (MMW), which has been linked to health problems from eye and heart problems to pain and immune system effects, and are known to penetrate 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin tissue.15
Unlike the “4th Generation” (4G) technology currently in use, which relies on huge 90-foot cell towers with about a dozen antenna ports on each, the 5G system uses “small cell” facilities or bases, each with about 100 antenna ports each.16
Once it’s installed in your neighborhood, you won’t have a choice to opt out of 5G exposure, which is concerning, since research compiled by EMF coach and author Lloyd Burrell17 shows the proliferation of 5G for the sake of faster internet could be a public health disaster. For instance, the frequencies utilized by 5G have been linked to:18

Lens opacity in rats, which is linked to the production of cataracts
Impacted heart rate variability, and indicator of stress, in rats
Heart rate changes (arrhythmias) in frogs
Immune system effects in healthy mice

While MMWs have not been widely used before, it’s already been suggested that sweat ducts in human skin act as antennae when they come in contact with MMWs.19 Further, in 2017, more than 180 doctors and scientists from 35 countries signed a petition to enact a moratorium on the rollout of 5G due to potential health risks, including increased cancer risk, cellular stress, genetic damages, reproductive problems and neurological disorders.20
Reducing Your Risk of Cellphone Radiation Damage
RF-EMF exposure is a significant health hazard of the 21st century, one that I believe each of us should take seriously. If you want to get involved in keeping 5G out of your community, please contact your legislators to voice your opinion. Parents for Safe Technology has compiled a list of U.S. agencies you can contact about this important issue for the health and safety of future generations. In the meantime, here are several suggestions that will help reduce your RF-EMF exposure starting today:

Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

Filter dirty electricity with appropriate filters using meters

Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.21

If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This would include all new “smart” TVs. They are called smart because they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.

Refuse smart meters as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation by 98 to 99 percent.22

Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they will actually transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs.

Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.23

When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. I typically use my cellphone less than 30 minutes a month, and mostly when traveling. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection.

By Dr. Mercola
If you’re still holding out hope that science will eventually prove artificial sweeteners to be beneficial, or at the very least harmless, you’re likely to be disappointed. Again and again, research shows no-calorie sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose cause the same problems as excess sugar, and then some.
According to the latest statistics1 nearly 40 percent of American adults, over 18 percent of teens and nearly 14 percent of young children are now obese, not just overweight, and processed foods and sweetened beverages are clearly driving factors. Unfortunately, many make the mistake of thinking artificially sweetened products are a healthier option as it cuts down your calories, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The international trend of taxing sugary beverages to discourage sugar consumption has also had the unfortunate side effect of causing beverage makers to switch to artificial sweeteners rather than sugar and other calorie-rich sweeteners. However, when it comes to health, artificial sweeteners cause just as many health problems as sugar does.
Artificial Sweeteners Again Linked to Obesity and Diabetes
Over the years, an ever-growing number of studies have shown artificial sweeteners raise your risk of both obesity and Type 2 diabetes — perhaps even to a greater degree than sugar does. Most recently, animal research2,3 presented at the annual Experimental Biology conference in San Diego again confirmed that artificial sweeteners raise your risk of obesity and diabetes.

The study, which explored how different sweeteners affect the way food is used and stored in the body, and how they affect vascular functioning, found both sugar and artificial sweeteners result in impairments, albeit through different pathways. As noted by the authors:

“This study tested the response of the vascular endothelium in vitro and the in vivo response of a diabetes susceptible … rat model to glucose, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium supplementation … Through this set of experiments we have identified unique signatures of alterations in lipid metabolism, among others, following artificial sweetener consumption.
Overall, results of this study suggests that exposure to high glucose and artificial sweetener administration lead to unique mechanisms of vascular impairment and homeostatic alterations that may be important during the onset and progression of diabetes and obesity.”

Sugar Versus Artificial Sweeteners — Different Mechanisms of Action, Similar Results
After being fed a diet high in either artificial sweeteners (aspartame or acesulfame potassium) or sugars (glucose or fructose) for three weeks, detrimental effects were seen in all groups. All had increased blood lipids (fats), but the artificial sweeteners also accumulated in the blood of the animals, which harmed the blood vessel lining to a greater degree. Of the two artificial sweeteners, acesulfame potassium appeared to be the worst.

The results of the study — which used unbiased high-throughput metabolomics, a technique that allows you to investigate how something affects cellular metabolism — indicate that artificial sweeteners alter how your body processes fat and produces energy at the cellular level. So, while operating on completely different chemical pathways, they produce the same kinds of health consequences as sugar.
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,4 “In moderation, your body has the machinery to handle sugar; it is when the system is overloaded over a long period of time that this machinery breaks down.”
Artificial sweeteners, on the other hand, wear the machinery down. “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,” he says.5
One alternative sugar source is muscle, and indeed, evidence of protein breakdown 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 Trick Your Body Into Storing Fat

Contrary to industry claims, research over the last 30 years have shown that artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite, increase cravings for carbs, and produce a variety of metabolic dysfunctions that promote fat storage and weight gain, often to the researchers’ great surprise. Below is a sampling of some of the studies published through the years.

Preventive Medicine 19866

This study examined nearly 78,700 women aged 50 to 69 for one year. Artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners, 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.”

Physiology and Behavior 19887
In this study, they determined that no- or low-calorie sweeteners can produce significant changes in appetite. Of the three sweeteners tested, aspartame produced the most pronounced effects.

Physiology and Behavior 19908
Here, they found that aspartame had a time-dependent effect on appetite, “producing a transient decrease followed by a sustained increase in hunger ratings.”

Journal of the American Dietetic Association 19919
In a study of artificial sweeteners performed on college students, there was no evidence that artificial sweetener use was associated with a decrease in their overall sugar intake either.

International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 200310
This study, which looked at 3,111 children, found that diet soda, specifically, was associated with higher body mass index (BMI).

International Journal of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders 200411
This Purdue University study found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-caloric sweetened liquids. The researchers believe the experience of drinking artificially sweetened liquids disrupted the animals’ natural ability to compensate for the calories in the food.

San Antonio Heart Study 200512

Data gathered from the San Antonio Heart Study, which went on for 25 years, showed drinking diet soft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain far more so than regular soda.13 On average, for each diet soft drink the participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese.

Journal of the American College of Nutrition 200514
In this two-year-long study, which involved 166 school children, increased diet soda consumption was associated with higher BMI at the end of the trial.

The Journal of Pediatrics 200615
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study followed 2,371 girls aged 9 to 19 for 10 years. Soda consumption in general, both regular and diet, was associated with increase in total daily energy intake.

Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 201016
This review offers a summary of epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effects of artificial sweeteners on weight, and explains 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 shows the correlation between increased usage of artificial sweeteners in food and drinks, and the corresponding rise in obesity.

Source: Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine June 8 2010: v83(2)

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.”

Appetite 201217
Here, researchers showed that saccharin and aspartame cause greater weight gain than sugar, even when the total caloric intake remains similar.

Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 201318
This report highlights the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same exact health problems as those who opt for regular soda, such as excessive weight gain, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke.19,20 The researchers speculate that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.

The Journal of Physiology 201321,22
This study demonstrated that your body is not fooled by sweet taste without accompanying calories, which is yet another reason why artificial sweeteners promote obesity. 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 have 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.

Nature 201423
This important study was 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.

PLOS One 201424
This study, which was done on rats, using aspartame, also found an increased risk of glucose intolerance. Animals that consumed artificial sweeteners ended up with raised levels of propionate — short-chain fatty acids involved in sugar production. Consumption of artificial sweeteners shifted gut microbiota to produce propionate, which generated higher blood sugar levels. 

Other Ways Artificial Sweeteners Harm Your Health

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to a number of other adverse effects. For example, the amino acids in aspartame attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating toxic cellular overstimulation (excitotoxicity), and sucralose (sold under the brand name Splenda) has been linked to:

Decreased red blood cells, a sign of anemia, at levels above 1,500 milligrams 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 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent in the control group)

Artificial Sweeteners Destroy Your Gut Microbiome, and Much More

An in-depth scientific review25 of sucralose published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health also reveals an extensive list of safety concerns, including toxicity, DNA damage and heightened carcinogenic potential when used in cooking. It turns out that when heated, sucralose releases chloropropanols, which belong to a class of toxins known as dioxins, known to cause cancer and endocrine disruption.
Importantly, this review also concluded that sucralose destroys gut bacteria. In fact, animal research26 published in 2008 found it could kill as much as 50 percent of your microbiome, and appeared to targeted beneficial microorganisms to a greater extent than pathogenic and more detrimental bacteria. This is really important, as any time you destroy healthy intestinal bacteria you open yourself up to unfriendly microorganisms that can cause health problems.
Studies have also found that sucralose alters glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 levels and responses,27 thereby raising your risk for diabetes. Besides worsening insulin sensitivity and promoting weight gain, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners also promote other health problems associated with excessive sugar consumption, including:

Cardiovascular disease and stroke28,29,30
Alzheimer’s disease. While poor diet is a major driver of Alzheimer’s in general, the key mechanism of harm here appears to be methanol toxicity, a problem associated with aspartame in particular. In a previous interview, toxicology expert Dr. Woodrow Monte (author of the book “While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills”31) explains the links between aspartame and methanol toxicity and the formation of toxic formaldehyde

Surprising Reason Processed Foods Promote Drug-Resistant Disease
In related news, researchers have also found an intriguing link between processed foods and drug-resistant disease. Here, a sugar called trehalose is a preferred fuel for two of the most problematic strains of clostridium difficile (C. diff), microbes that cause severe gut infection and can lead to death. Deaths associated with this infection increased fivefold between 1999 and 2007, in part due to C. diff strains having developed resistance against antibiotics.
Moreover, researchers found that more virulent strains of C. diff were outcompeting less harmful strains inside the human gut. To determine how and why, they tested more than 200 different sugars and amino acids to see whether these more virulent strains were somehow able to use some food sources more efficiently than others — and this is precisely what they found.32 As reported by The New York Times:33

“Trehalose occurs naturally in mushrooms, yeasts and shellfish, among other things. It has historically been expensive to use, but in the late 1990s a new manufacturing process made the sugar cheap. That was good news for companies that manufactured prepackaged foods, because trehalose works great for stabilizing processed foods, keeping them moist on the shelf and improving texture.
Since about 2001, we’ve added loads of it to everything from cookies to ground beef. What Dr. [Robert] Britton and his colleagues contend is that, in doing so, we’ve inadvertently cultivated the most toxic C. diff strains, driving what has become a scourge of hospitals. As evidence, he points to the timing of recent C. diff epidemics. The virulent strains existed before 2000, but they didn’t cause as many outbreaks.
Only after large quantities of trehalose entered the food supply did they become this deadly … Britton also found that mice infected with those virulent strains of C. diff that consumed the sugar fared worse than infected mice that were not fed the sugar … ‘What this research shows is that people should be considering the ecological impacts of food stuffs,’ Britton [says]. ‘Our gut bacteria are being bombarded with things that we never ate — or never ate in the concentrations we eat now.'”

For Optimal Health, Drink More Clean Water
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, and this includes artificially sweetened beverages as well, which may in fact be worse for your health than regular soda.
As you can see, the scientific evidence shows artificial sweeteners can stimulate your appetite, increase carb cravings, stimulate fat storage and promote weight gain just like regular soda. As noted above, diet soda is associated with a 50 percent increased risk of obesity while regular soda (at a rate of one can per day) is associated with a 60 percent increased risk.

In addition to that, aspartame is associated with a long list of other harmful effects, ranging from brain damage to pre-term delivery, while sucralose has been found to be particularly damaging to your intestines.34,35 Unfortunately, many are still in the dark about these health risks. Sugar also promotes unhealthy bacterial growth, and many are already deficient in healthy bacteria due to consuming too many highly processed foods.

This is why I recommend eating fermented vegetables every day, or at the very least taking a high-quality probiotic. 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.”