Connect with us


Splenda Should Be Sued for False Advertising





Artificial sweeteners are incredibly popular in the U.S., with consumption jumping by 54 percent among adults and 200 percent among children from 1999 to 2012.1 This means more than 41 percent of adults — and 25 percent of children — are consuming such sweeteners, which include sucralose, brand name Splenda.

Almost always, the motivation for consuming artificial sweeteners is that they’re believed by many to be healthier than sugar, or at least to represent the lesser of two evils. In reality, while sugar is easily one of the worst offenders to human health, artificial sweeteners are even worse. But they’ve earned a reputation for being healthy because of carefully orchestrated PR campaigns created by their makers.

Sucralose, which is manufactured and sold by companies such as Tate & Lyle PLC and Coca-Cola Co., is no exception. With a “sweeten smarter” tagline and claim that it’s “safe, sweet and tested,” Splenda’s website is geared toward letting consumers know why they should “choose Sucralose sweeteners over sugar.”2

One of sucralose’s key marketing claims has long been that it neither metabolizes nor bioaccumulates in the human body, thus making it a basically inert substance. But recent studies have suggested otherwise, which is why the consumer group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate.

Study Suggests Sucralose Is Metabolized and Bioaccumulates

In a letter to the FTC, USRTK asked the FTC to investigate whether some of sucralose’s marketing claims are deceptive.3 “[S]ucralose is being advertised and marketed as not metabolized or bioaccumulated by humans. The claim may well be deceptive … given research suggesting that sucralose metabolizes and bioaccumulates in rats, and perhaps it does so in humans as well,” the letter reads.

The research referred to is a study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health,4 which aimed to determine if sucralose, an organochlorine artificial sweetener, is metabolized in rat intestines as well as whether it bioaccumulates in rats’ fat tissue. To find out, researchers gave 10 rats sucralose daily for 40 days.

They received a dose of 80.4 mg/kg/day, an amount within the range used by toxicology studies submitted for regulatory approval. During the study period, the rats’ urine and feces were tested and found to contain acetylated forms of sucralose, specifically two sucralose metabolites that had not previously been reported. The finding suggests that sucralose is, in fact, metabolized. According to the study:5

“These metabolites were present in urine and feces throughout the sucralose dosing period and still detected at low levels in the urine 11 days after discontinuation of sucralose administration and six days after sucralose was no longer detected in the urine or feces.

The finding of acetylated sucralose metabolites in urine and feces do not support early metabolism studies, on which regulatory approval was based, that claimed ingested sucralose is excreted unchanged (i.e., not metabolized).”

What’s more, even though sucralose had disappeared from urine and feces two weeks after the administration stopped, it was still detected in fat tissue. “Thus, depuration of sucralose which accumulated in fatty tissue requires an extended period of time after discontinuation of chemical ingestion,” the researchers explained, adding:6

“These new findings of metabolism of sucralose in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and its accumulation in adipose tissue were not part of the original regulatory decision process for this agent and indicate that it now may be time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of this organochlorine artificial sweetener.”

Is Sucralose Deceiving Consumers With False Advertising?

Sucralose is found in thousands of low-calorie foods and beverages worldwide, and in the U.S. has the largest market share for artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes.7 It first gained regulatory approval in Canada in 1991, with approval in the U.S. occurring in 1998.

The U.S. approval was based on early studies that suggested the majority of sucralose was not absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract but instead was excreted in the feces. As mentioned, this was also a major part of sucralose’s PR campaign in convincing the U.S. public that this unnatural sweetener is safe.

But as noted by the featured study, “The conclusions of the published data, from both rats and humans that ingested sucralose is excreted unchanged (i.e., not metabolized) appear to be premature.”8

Indeed, Gary Ruskin, codirector of USRTK, said in a news release, “Are food companies deceiving consumers by telling them that sucralose doesn’t metabolize or bioaccumulate? That’s what we’re asking the Federal Trade Commission to figure out.”9

“Tate & Lyle’s website states that ‘SPLENDA® Sucralose is not recognized by the body as a carbohydrate and is not metabolized by the body.’ Coca-Cola’s website claims that ‘The small amount of sucralose that is absorbed is not metabolized, but is rapidly eliminated in urine as sucralose. Sucralose does not accumulate in the body,'” Ruskin said. “These statements and others appear to be contradicted by the study in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health.”10

It remains to be seen whether the FTC will investigate sucralose’s potential deceptive marketing, or whether lawsuits will emerge as a result, but it’s clear that additional safety testing is needed.

This is particularly true since the dose used in the study (80.4 mg/kg/day) is sixteenfold greater than the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 5 mg/kg/day set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and 5.3 times higher than the ADI of 15 mg/kg/day approved in the European Union, the study noted. What’s more, their findings suggest the safe level of intake may actually be lower than what health agencies have set:11

“If one were to apply a 100-fold safety factor to the biological effects reported in the present study, that is, metabolism and bioaccumulation at 80.4 mg/kg/day, this would lower the ADI for sucralose to less than 1 mg/kg/day … Data indicate that it may now be time to revisit the regulatory status of sucralose.”

Baking With Sucralose Could Be Dangerous

Please note this video is seven years old, but is as relevant today as it was then.

Previous research has also noted that sucralose is not a biologically inert compound, as claimed. In the 2013 paper, the authors state, in part:12

“Sucralose and one of its hydrolysis products were found to be mutagenic at elevated concentrations in several testing methods … Both human and rodent studies demonstrated that sucralose may alter glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 levels. Taken together, these findings indicate that sucralose is not a biologically inert compound.”

Sucralose is also heavily advertised as a tool for baking, even being sold in granulated form in large resealable packages and in blends with sugar and brown sugar. Splenda’s website also includes a conversion chart to use when swapping sucralose with sugar while cooking and baking.13

Yet, when heated to high temperatures, as is done during cooking, sucralose generates chloropropanols, which are potentially toxic compounds that belong to a class of toxins known as dioxins, known to cause cancer and endocrine disruption. Even processed foods that contain sucralose are typically subjected to high heat during processing, raising serious health concerns.

Sucralose Damages Your Gut, Poses Risks to Liver and Kidney Health

Another reason to be wary of sucralose has to do with your gut health, which is key to your overall health. Research published in 2008 found sucralose:14

  • Reduces gut bacteria by 50 percent, preferentially targeting bacteria known to have important human health benefits (consuming as few as seven little Splenda packages is enough to have a detrimental effect on your microbiome)
  • Increases the pH level in your intestines
  • Is absorbed into and accumulates in fat tissue

It’s also possible that regularly using sucralose could damage your liver. Research published in the journal Morphologie found sucralose caused “definite changes” in the liver of treated rats, “indicating toxic effects on regular ingestion.” According to these researchers, their findings suggest “sucralose should be taken with caution to avoid hepatic damage.”15

Other research in mice found that feeding the animals sucralose beginning prenatally and continuing for their entire life span led to a significant increase in cancerous tumors in male mice, with the risk increasing with increasing dose.16 Studies have also linked sucralose consumption to:

Genotoxicity (DNA damage) and potentially adverse epigenetic effects.17 According to this paper, the acceptable daily intake set for sucralose may in fact be hundreds of times too high to ensure safety

Shrinkage of the thymus, up to 40 percent18

Enlargement of the liver and kidneys19

Calcification of the kidneys20

Increased leukocyte populations (immune system cells) in the thymus and lymph nodes21


Spikes in insulin and glucose. A study published in the journal Diabetes Care confirmed that, compared to controls, obese patients using sucralose experienced a greater incremental increase in peak plasma concentrations of glucose, a greater incremental increase in insulin and peak insulin secretion rate, along with a decrease in insulin clearance.23

According to the authors, “These data demonstrate that sucralose affects the glycemic and insulin responses to an oral glucose load in obese people who do not normally consume non-nutritive sweeteners”

Alterations in P-glycoprotein (P-gp) levels, which could result in medications used in chemotherapy, AIDS treatment and treatments for heart conditions being shunted back into the intestines, rather than being absorbed by your body24

Safer Sweeteners to Consider

Sucralose manufacturers may be deceiving consumers by claiming the substance is not metabolized and doesn’t accumulate in the human body. And if that’s the case, research may soon begin to unveil even more adverse effects that come with consuming this artificial sweetener.

This type of dishonesty is the reason why I wrote my book, “Sweet Deception,” in 2006, and it still contains relevant information for those of you wanting to know more about the misconceptions surrounding artificial sweeteners and your health.

If you currently use Splenda or any other artificial sweetener, there are safer substitutes to be had, including stevia and lo han kuo (also spelled luo han guo). Stevia is a sweet herb derived from the leaf of the South American stevia plant and can be used to sweeten most dishes and drinks.

Please don’t confuse pure stevia with Splenda Naturals, a product that combines sugar with stevia leaf extract. Lo han kuo is similar to stevia, but it’s a bit more expensive and harder to find. You can also use pure glucose, also known as dextrose. Although it’s not as sweet as sugar, it’s better for your health because it doesn’t contain fructose.

Many people find that once they stop using artificial sweeteners, mysterious health symptoms clear up. You can do a test yourself by removing all sources of sucralose from your diet and noticing if your health improves. The following are common symptoms that have been reported or may be noticed following consumption of a sucralose product:25,26,27

Skin — Redness, itching, swelling, blistering, weeping, crusting, rash, eruptions or hives (itchy bumps or welts)

Lungs — Wheezing, tightness, cough or shortness of breath

Head — Swelling of the face, eyelids, lips, tongue or throat; headaches and migraines (severe headaches)

Nose — Stuffy nose, runny nose (clear, thin discharge), sneezing

Eyes — Red (bloodshot), itchy, swollen or watery

Stomach — Bloating, gas, pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea

Heart — Palpitations or fluttering

Joints — Joint pains or aches

Neurological — Anxiety, dizziness, spaced-out sensation, depression


Source link

قالب وردپرس

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Bill Gates: Third Shot May Be Needed to Combat Coronavirus Variants





With more than 40 million Americans having received at least the first dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, a third dose may be needed to prevent the spread of new variants of the disease, Bill Gates told CBS News Tuesday.

Gates’ comments come amid growing concern that the current vaccines are not effective against the more contagious Brazilian and South African variants.

Pfizer and Moderna have stated that their vaccines are 95% and 99% effective, respectively, against the initial strain of COVID. However, some scientists have questioned those statements. Additionally, the World Health Organization and vaccine companies have conceded that the vaccines do not prevent people from being infected with COVID or from transmitting it, but are only effective at reducing symptoms.

Gates told CBS Evening News:

“The discussion now is do we just need to get a super high coverage of the current vaccine, or do we need a third dose that’s just the same, or do we need a modified vaccine?”

U.S. vaccine companies are looking at making modifications, which Gates refers to as “tuning.”

People who have had two shots may need to get a third shot and people who have not yet been vaccinated would need the modified vaccine, explained Gates. When asked whether the coronavirus vaccine would be similar to the flu vaccine, which requires yearly boosters, Gates couldn’t rule that out. Until the virus is eradicated from all humans, Gates said, additional shots may be needed in the future.

AstraZeneca in particular has a challenge with the variant,” Gates explained. “And the other two, Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, are slightly less effective, but still effective enough that we absolutely should get them out as fast as we can while we study this idea of tuning the vaccine.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the studies being conducted in Brazil and South Africa, CBS News said. The foundation has also invested in the AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and the Novavax vaccines, which are being tested against new variants. Once the AstraZeneca vaccine is approved, the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative or GAVI, founded by Gates, will distribute it globally.

“Gates continues to move the goalposts,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense. “Meanwhile the strategies he and others have promoted are obliterating the global economy, demolishing the middle class, making the rich richer and censoring vaccine safety advocates, like me.”

Kennedy said that the exclusive focus on vaccines has prevented the kind of progress required to actually address and recover from the pandemic:

“From the pandemic’s outset, clear-headed people familiar with the challenges inherent in the vaccine model have understood that the path out of crisis would require multiple steps. Those steps would need to include the development and/or identification of therapeutic drugs, the sharing of information among doctors to hone improved treatment models that reduce infection mortality rates below those for flu, and the kind of broad-spectrum long-term herd immunity that protects against mutant strains and that only derives from natural infection.”

Instead, Gates and vaccine makers are proposing a lifetime of boosters, supporting insufficient testing to determine safety and failing to address the inadequate monitoring of vaccine injuries, Kennedy said.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Continue Reading


Young nurse suffers from hemorrhage and brain swelling after second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine





(Natural News) A 28-year-old healthcare worker from the Swedish American Hospital, in Beloit, Wisconsin was recently admitted to the ICU just five days after receiving a second dose of Pfizer’s experimental mRNA vaccine. The previously healthy young woman was pronounced brain dead after cerebral angiography confirmed a severe hemorrhage stroke in her brain stem.

Her family members confirmed that she was “breaking out in rashes” after the vaccine. She also suffered from sudden migraine headaches, and got “sick” after taking the second dose of the vaccine. At the very end, she lost the ability to speak and went unconscious. The migraines, nausea, and loss of speech were all symptoms of a brain bleed and brain swelling, something her family did not understand at the time, and something nobody would expect after vaccination.

While on life support, neurologists used angiography to image the damage inside the brain. They found a subarachnoid hemorrhage, whereas a bulging blood vessel burst in the brain, bleeding out in the space between the brain and the tissue covering the brain. The ensuing swelling cut off oxygen to the brain and caused brain death. On February 10, 2021, Sarah reportedly had “no brain activity.” Some of the woman’s organs are now being procured, so they can be donated to other people around the world.

Doctors warn FDA about COVID vaccines causing autoimmune attacks in the heart and brain

Experimental COVID-19 vaccines may cause inflammation along the cardiovascular system, leading to heart attack and/or stroke. This serious issue was brought forth to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D. and further confirmed by cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, M.D., Ph.D. The two doctors warned that a recently-infected patient who is subject to COVID-19 vaccination is likely to suffer from autoimmune attacks along the ACE-2 receptors present in the heart, and in the microvasculature of the brain, liver and kidney. If viral antigens are present in the tissues of recipients at the time of vaccination, the vaccine-augmented immune response will turn the immune system against those tissues, causing inflammation that can lead to blood clot formation.

This severe adverse event is likely cause of death for the elderly who are vaccinated despite recently being infected. There is no adequate screening process to ensure that this autoimmune attack doesn’t occur. The elderly are not the only people vulnerable to vaccine injury and death. Pfizer’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine could be the main cause behind the sudden death of Sarah Sickles, a 28-year-old nurse from Wisconsin. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System has captured five permanent disabilities in Wisconsin, 58 ER visits, and eleven deaths in just one month. This is the first case in Wisconsin of someone under 44 years of age suffering from severe COVID-19 vaccine side effects and death. There are now more than 1,170 deaths recorded in the U.S. related to the experimental mRNA vaccines, a reality that the FDA and CDC continue to ignore.

Continue Reading


Powering hypersonic weapons: US armed forces eyeing dangerous 5G tech





(Natural News) Much of the conversation surrounding the benefits of 5G is geared toward the consumer side of the technology. People will be able to download videos at lightning speed and will be more connected than ever, proponents claim, although there are serious questions regarding its safety. However, some of the most important 5G applications are not civil at all – the technology will be used extensively in the military domain.

Some of its military uses are outlined in the Defense Applications of 5G Network Technology report, which was published by the Defense Science Board. This federal committee gives scientific advice to the Pentagon. Their report states: “The emergence of 5G technology, now commercially available, offers the Department of Defense the opportunity to take advantage, at minimal cost, of the benefits of this system for its own operational requirements.”

The 5G commercial network that is being built by private companies right now can be used by the American military for a much lower cost than if the network had been set up exclusively for military purposes.

Military experts expect the 5G system to play a pivotal role in using hypersonic weapons. For example, it can be used for new missiles that bear nuclear warheads and travel at speeds superior to Mach 5. These hypersonic weapons, which travel at five times the speed of sound and move a mile per second, will be flying at high altitudes on unpredictable flight paths, making them as hard to guide as they will be to intercept.

Huge quantities of data need to be gathered and transmitted in a very short period in order to maneuver these warheads on variable trajectories and allow them to change direction in milliseconds to avoid interceptor missiles.

5G for defense

This type of technology is also needed to activate defenses should we be attacked by a weapon of this type; 5G automatic systems could theoretically handle decisions that humans won’t have enough time to make on their own. Military bases and even cities will have less than a minute to react to incoming hypersonic missiles, and 5G will make it easier to process real time data on trajectories for decision-making.

There are also important uses of this technology in combat. 5G’s ability to simultaneously link millions of transceivers will undoubtedly facilitate communication among military personnel and allow them to transmit photos, maps and other vital information about operations in progress at dizzying speeds to improve situational awareness.

The military can also take advantage of the high-frequency and short-wavelength millimeter wave spectrum used by 5G. Its short range means that it is well suited for smart military bases and command posts because the signal will not propagate too far, making it less likely that enemies will be able to detect it.

When it comes to special forces and secret services, the benefits of 5G are numerous. Its speed and connectivity will allow espionage systems to reach unprecedented levels of efficiency. It will also make drones more dangerous by allowing them to identify and target people using facial recognition and other methods.

Like all technology, 5G will also make us highly vulnerable. The network itself could become an attractive target for cyber-attacks and other acts of war being carried out with cutting-edge weaponry. In fact, the 5G network is already viewed as critical infrastructure and is being carefully protected before it is even fully built.

While the focus on 5G’s dangers to human health and the environment is absolutely warranted, it is also important not to lose sight of the military implications of 5G. After all, it is not just the United States that is developing this technology for military purposes; our enemies, like China and other countries, are also making great strides in this realm.

Continue Reading