Connect with us

Underworld

Pope Francis Admits Nuns Were Used as “Sex Slaves” by Priests and Bishops

Pope Francis has acknowledged that the Roman Catholic Church has a persistent problem in which nuns are sexually abused by priests and bishops who have resorted to using them as “sex slaves.”

The admission by the pontiff marks the first public acknowledgement of the problem, which piles further scandal onto Catholic clergy who are already coping with a crisis of global proportions over the sexual abuse of children.

In recent years, Catholic nuns have raised their voices over sexual assaults by clerics in Africa, Latin America, India, and Italy.

Speaking to an Associated Press reporter on Tuesday during a flight home from Abu Dhabi, the pope acknowledged that more must be done to address the crisis:

“It’s true … There have been priests and even bishops who have done this. I think it is still going on because something does not stop just because you have become aware of it.”

The pope also revealed that an order of nuns was dissolved by the previous pontiff, Pope Benedict, after abuses “to the point of sexual slavery” were committed by high-ranking clergy. Pope Francis said:

“It’s a path that we’ve been on. Pope Benedict had the courage to dissolve a female congregation which was at a certain level, because this slavery of women had entered it — slavery, even to the point of sexual slavery — on the part of clerics or the founder.”

A Vatican press representative later confirmed to CBS News that the order of nuns dissolved in 2005 was the Community of St. Jean in France.

The comments come on the heels of an article released by a Vatican women’s magazine that delved into the abuse of nuns within the Catholic Church.

In an article for Women Church World, editor-in-chief Lucetta Scaraffia noted cases where nuns were forced to carry out abortions of priests’ children or to bear children that the priests refused to recognize, noting that offenders enjoyed impunity because of the culture of silence surrounding their crimes.

Scaraffia wrote:

“If eyes continue to be closed to this scandal – rendered even more serious by the fact that the abuse of women entails procreation and is thus at the root of the scandal of imposed abortions and of the children not recognized by priests – the condition of oppression of women in the Church will never change.”

The magazine also included a message from the pope addressing the scandal, where he tore into the abuse of power by high-ranking clergy and priests who have shielded their crimes.

On Wednesday, church officials sought to walk back the “sexual slavery” line. Vatican spokesman Alessandro Gisotti told reporters that the ope “spoke of ‘sexual slavery’ to mean ‘manipulation’ or a type of abuse of power that is reflected in a sexual abuse.”

Last year, the International Union of Superiors General, a body representing over half a million nuns, blasted the “culture of silence and secrecy” over such abuses in the church, and urged members to report instances of abuse to their congregations as well as church and state authorities, noting that they “stand by those courageous women and men who have reported abuse.”

This article originally appeared on TMU

Advertisement
Comments

Underworld

California Brain Tumor Association Issues Warning On Dangers of 5G

Alex Pietrowski, Staff Writer
Waking Times

At the center of the debate about 5G technology is the issue of whether or not 5G is safe. Already underway, though, the rapid rollout will deploy 20,000+ satellitesmillions of small towers, and use the same range of EMF waves as a military crowd-control system. Proponents of the technology don’t seem to acknowledge the growing body of research and growing number of voices warning us of the coming catastrophe of a world blanketed in 5G radiation.

Most often, however, those who are negatively impacted by wireless technologies and electromagnetic pollution, are individuals whose voices aren’t heard outside of courtrooms and city halls. In Canada, for example, journalist Rodney Palmer spoke to local government about a “wi-fi disaster,” which actually hurt a number of school children, resulting in the removal of the school’s wireless network.

“When the schools installed the wifi, we found out that at least four children had erratic tachycardia [fast or irregular heart rate] that confounded their doctors and they were wearing heart monitors to school. The older children…told us they had blackouts in certain areas of the school.” – Rodney Palmer

Interestingly, firefighters have for years opposed the placement of cell towers near fire stations, arguing that the effects of the towers disrupt living conditions for firemen and can cause neurological problems. A study was done for an incident occurred with a group of Los Angeles firefighters in 2016,  and is recounted in public testimony from veteran firefighter and Union president, David Gillotte.

Dr. Gunnar Heuser lead brain studies on firefighters following a cell tower installation on their fire station and found that their brains were all abnormal. His SPECT brain study in 2004 focused on firefighters who complained of neurological problems following a cell tower installation at their fire station beforehand. The symptoms they experienced were: headaches, memory problems, sleeping problems, depression, and anxiety.  Dr. Heuser published a study recently on fMRI showing abnormalities in EHS similar to brain injury. Original study published in July 2017, without the controls, full textCorrigendum to the study, which includes fMRI scans of the controls (non- EHS) ~Arun Walia

Gillotte speaks on the need to protect firefighters and stations from cell towers.

Of interest in this conversation should also be the insight and opinions of closest to the victims of EMF pollution. In 2016, the California Brain Tumor Association (CBTA) condemned the passage of a bill that allowed for proliferation of small cell towers in California communities by requiring cities to lease land to telecom companies for 5G equipment and infrastructure.

Acknowledging the known concerns of firefighters, CBTA executive director Ellie Marks had remarks for then governor Jerry Brown:

CBTA said, “The burning question Gov. Brown should be asking himself as he makes a decision that could change California forever is this: If we exempt fire stations to protect firefighters, why are we allowing cell towers throughout neighborhoods, in front of preschools, schools, hidden in church steeples, on lampposts, utility poles and on most public buildings if these are too dangerous for fire stations?” [Source]

Marks and the CBTA cited several key studies as the scientific and ethical foundation for opposing the bill and for opposing 5G in general.

CBTA, headed by executive director Ellen [sic] Marks, issued a press release that cited several studies pointing to the dangers of pulsed, electro-magnetic radiation.

DNA damage in those living close to a cell tower was documented in a new study by Electromagnetic Biol Med. 2017 Aug 4:1-11: “Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.”

Source: Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC.:   Department of Zoology, Cancer and Radiation Biology Laboratory , Mizoram University, India. 

“All of the recorded radiofrequency radiation (RFR) power density values in this study were well below the Federal Communication Commission’s maximum permissible exposure limits in the U.S. for the general population,” said Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., University of Calif. Berkeley School of Public Health.

The study, said CBTA, follows on the heels of the major $25 million study recently released by the U.S. National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health that found increased incidences of brain cancer, malignant tumors of the heart and DNA damage in laboratory animals from exposure levels the FCC considers “safe.”

The American Cancer Society’s statement on the significance of this new study was cited: “The NTP report linking radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk. The findings are unexpected; we wouldn’t reasonably expect non-ionizing radiation to cause these tumors.” 

According to their website, the CBTA was formed by Ellie Marks as an advocacy group after her husband was diagnosed with brain cancer which was believed to be the result of cell phone usage. More on the CBTA

Founded in 2008, the California Brain Tumor Association is a leading non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding public health. We believe that it is inexcusable to allow technological advances invented to enrich our lives rob us of our lives instead.

We have been researching the question of how the wireless radiation from cell phones, towers and wifi routers (all things wireless) has harmful effects on health. The wireless industry says the “jury is out” and that the studies to date are inconclusive or mixed, with about half saying yes and half saying no. We do not agree.

Independent expert groups have looked at the same studies and determined that the industry-funded studies tend to find no harm and the independent studies tend to find there is harm.

The science is far more settled than the industry claims.

Our reading of the situation is that science has established enough proof of harm that regulations should be updated now and appropriate warnings issued. The “jury” actually is back and it has given its guilty verdict.

In brief, we are convinced that the science, on a global basis, is far more definitive than the claims by industry and government agencies imply. I recognize that this position places us far out on a limb relative to most people, but our conviction level is very high.

CABTA focuses on prevention as the cure and exposes environmental hazards.

Currently, we continue to focus on prevention of primary brain tumors due to cell phone use and our government’s deployment of 4G and 5G technology with no apparent concern for peer reviewed published science documenting the health risks from wireless technology.

Here is director Ellie Marks speaking in opposition to SB 649:

In the following video, members of the wireless industry admit that there are no studies showing 5G is safe:

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article (California Brain Tumor Association Issues Warning On Dangers of 5Goriginally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and WakingTimes.com

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

The Deeper Reason for Drug Ads On Television

Jon Rappoport, Guest
Waking Times

Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.

Have you ever heard of these drugs? OtezlaXeljanzNamzaricKeytrudaBreoCosentyz? Not likely. If you have, do you know what conditions they treat? Highly unlikely. But there they are, splashed in commercials.

Why? Who is going to remember to ask their doctor whether these and other obscure meds are right for them?

What’s going on here?

The answer is: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT DRUGS ARE BEING ADVERTISED.

If Pharma can pay enough TOTAL money for ads, for ALL drugs, and dominate the allotted TV time for commercials, it can control the news—and that is exactly what it wants to do.

Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

Face it, the billions of dollars Pharma is paying for TV ads are a drop in the bucket, compared with its profits gained from selling the drugs. The ads are a good investment. As a bribe.

Control the news.

There is another reason for the insane flood of TV drug ads:

By their sheer number, they convince viewers that medical drugs (no matter what they are) are absolutely necessary.

Hour by hour, viewers numbly watch drug commercial after commercial. The overall message is: To keep illness from your door, to cure illness, to alleviate illness, you must take these medicines. THIS IS LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. You’re all sick, and you need help, and this is the ONLY kind of help there is.

The drug companies could invent names of fake drugs that don’t even exist, advertise them in a cascade on television, with the same intent. DRUGS ARE AS VITAL TO LIFE AS WATER OR AIR.

But what about all those dire warnings of side effects from the drugs? By law, the companies must include them in their commercials. Well, the companies have calculated that, on balance, the stark, front-line, unending message of DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS will outweigh the warnings in viewers’ minds.

If the television audience is nailed with the idea that they can’t escape; that their health always hangs in the balance; that dire illnesses are always waiting in the shadows to strike; that the slightest ache or pain could be a precursor to a crippling or fatal disease; and drugs are the only solution and protection—they’re going to overlook the warnings about side effects.

ALL IN ALL, DRUG ADS ARE NEWS.

That’s the approach. Pharma is blasting out 24/7 news asserting modern medicine’s central and commanding role in the life of every human.

It’s a gigantic and stupendous piece of mind control, but when did that ever stop tyrants from inventing reality for the masses?

Implicit in “ask your doctor if drug X is right for you,” is the message: “go to your doctor.” That’s the key. If the ads can put a viewer into the system, he will be diagnosed with something, and he’ll be given a drug for it.

So the drug ads are also promotions for doctors, who are the arbiters and the decision makers. Some kind of medical need (drugs) always exists—and the doctor will tell you what it is. And all patients should OBEY. Even if, in the process, they go broke.

Take the case of Opdivo, a drug that treats squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Cost? $12,500 a month. Patients on Medicare will pay $2500 a month out of their own pockets. And the result?

Wall St, Journal: “In the clinical study on which the Opdivo ad bases its claims, the drug extended median patient survival to 9.2 months from the start of treatment…”

The cancer patient pays $22,500 for nine months of survival, during which the suffering continues, and then he dies.

The ad isn’t mentioning THAT.

The ad relies on the doctor to convince the patient to go along with this lunatic program.

About the Author

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrixclick here.)

This article (The Deeper Reason for Drug Ads On Television) was originally created and published by Jon Rappaport’s Blog and is re-posted here with permission.

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

Research Reveals Shocking Information About Sucralose (Splenda) Side Effects

Dr. Mercola, Guest
Waking Times

Sucralose (sold under the brand names Splenda, Splenda Zero, Zero-Cal, Sukrana, Apriva, SucraPlus, Candys, Cukren and Nevella, to name a few) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998 as a tabletop sweetener and for use in products such as baked goods, nonalcoholic beverages, chewing gum, frozen dairy desserts, fruit juices and gelatins. It is also permitted as a general-purpose sweetener for all processed foods.

In the European Union, sucralose is known under the additive code E955. However, this artificial sweetener, like aspartame before it, was approved based on extremely limited evidence of safety, and studies published in the years since it was brought to market confirms early suspicions, showing it is not an inert substance after all; that it accumulates in body fat, disrupts your gut microbiome, and causes metabolic dysregulation and associated health problems.

Splenda Was Approved With Near-Nonexistent Evidence of Safety

The FDA claims it approved sucralose after reviewing more than 110 animal and human safety studies. What they don’t tell you is that of these 110 studies, only two human trials were actually published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption.

These two human trials had a grand total of 36 subjects, only 23 of whom were actually given sucralose, and the longest lasted just four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.1

What’s more, the absorption of sucralose into the human body was studied on a grand total of six men. Based on that study,2 the FDA allowed the findings to be generalized as being representative of the entire human population, including women, children, the elderly and those with any chronic illness — none of whom was ever examined.

These studies are hardly indicative of what might happen to someone consuming sucralose in multiple products every single day for years or a lifetime. Some of the animal studies also raised questions about the product’s safety, showing:3

  • Decreased red blood cells (a sign of anemia) at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day
  • Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
  • Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group
  • A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent death rate in the control group

I knew the approval of sucralose was a serious mistake, which is why I wrote “Sweet Deception” in 2006, despite the fact Johnson & Johnson threatened to sue me if the book went to publication. Since then, many new studies have confirmed my warnings, showing artificial sweeteners confuse your metabolism and cause biochemical distortions that can result in weight gain, metabolic dysfunction and other health problems.

Sucralose ‘Should Carry a Big Red Warning Label’ as It Kills Your Beneficial Gut Bacteria and Accumulates in Your Fat Tissue

Sucralose has been found to be particularly damaging to your gut. Research4 published in 2008 found it reduces gut bacteria by 50 percent, 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.

The study also found it increases the pH level in your intestines, and is absorbed into and accumulates in fat tissue. In response to this study, James Turner, chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health, issued the following statement:5

“The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda, and this study … confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label.”

All Artificial Sweeteners Are Toxic to Your Gut Bacteria

More recent research confirmed these findings, and expanded them to all currently approved artificial sweeteners. The animal study,6 published in the journal Molecules in October 2018, found aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k all cause DNA damage in, and interfere with, the normal and healthy activity of gut bacteria.

As reported by Business Insider,7 the research team concluded that all of these sweeteners “had a toxic, stressing effect, making it difficult for gut microbes to grow and reproduce,” and that by being toxic to gut bacteria can have an adverse effect on human health.

Aside from the countless side effects associated with an impaired gut microbiome, the researchers warn it may also affect your body’s ability to process regular sugar and other carbohydrates.

Sucralose Is Not an Inert Compound

Research has also demonstrated that sucralose is not a biologically inert compound, as claimed. In the 2013 paper,8 “Sucralose, a Synthetic Organochloride Sweetener: Overview of Biological Issues,” the authors state, in part:

“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.”

According to this paper, the acceptable daily intake set for sucralose may in fact be hundreds of times too high to ensure safety. Importantly, the study also notes that “Cooking with sucralose at high temperatures … generates chloropropanols, a potentially toxic class of compounds.”

Yet, Splenda is frequently recommended for cooking and baking,9 and is often used in processed foods in which high heat was involved. Chloropropanols, which are still poorly understood, are thought to have adverse effects on your kidneys and may have carcinogenic effects.10

Researchers Call for New Safety Review in Light of Evidence Showing Sucralose Is Metabolized and Stored in Fat Tissue

Another industry claim that has been demolished by science is the claim that sucralose passes unmetabolized through your body and therefore has no biological effects. Alas, research11,12 published in the online version of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health August 21, 2018, shows it is in fact metabolized and that it accumulates in fat cells.

Here, 10 rats were given an average dose of 80.4 mg of sucralose per kilo per day (k/day) for 40 days. According to the researchers, this dosage is “within the range utilized in historical toxicology studies submitted for regulatory approval in North America, Europe and Asia.”

Urine and feces were collected daily from each rat, and were analyzed using ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC–MS/MS), which “revealed two new biotransformation products that have not previously been reported.”

The two metabolites are acetylated forms of sucralose that are lipophilic, meaning they dissolve in and combine with fats. Sucralose itself is far less lipophilic, which has been part of the safety argument. According to the authors:

“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).

The historical metabolic studies apparently failed to detect these metabolites in part because investigators used a methanol fraction from feces for analysis along with thin layer chromatography and a low-resolution linear radioactivity analyzer.

Further, sucralose was found in adipose tissue in rats two weeks after cessation of the 40-day feeding period even though this compound had disappeared from the urine and feces.”

So, not only is sucralose metabolized, these metabolites accumulate in your fat tissues, where they remain for “an extended period of time” after you stop consuming sucralose. In all, these findings led the authors to conclude:

“These new findings of metabolism of sucralose in the gastrointestinal tract 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.”

Sucralose Linked to Liver, Kidney and Thymus Damage

Another study13 published online August 2, 2018, 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.”

Earlier research has also linked sucralose consumption to liver and kidney enlargement14,15 and kidney calcification.16,17 Another organ affected by sucralose is your thymus, with studies linking sucralose consumption to shrinkage of the thymus (up to 40 percent18,19) and an increase in leukocyte populations (immune system cells) in the thymus and lymph nodes.20

Sucralose Raises Risk of Type 2 Diabetes

Like all other artificial sweeteners, sucralose is commonly used by diabetics who need to limit their sugar consumption. However, research again shows you simply cannot trick your body with calorie-free sweetness. Research21 published in 2013 revealed sucralose alters glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 levels and responses, which raises your risk for Type 2 diabetes.

It 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.

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.”

Lots of Studies Question Safety of Sucralose

There are 11,200 references to sucralose in the scientific search engine Google Scholar, so there’s no shortage of studies to review for those who are curious. Here’s a small sampling with a focus on more recent papers showing sucralose may be harmful to your health:

Potential Metabolic Effect of Sucralose Following an Oral Glucose Load in Subjects With Obesity and Normal-Weight Subjects, 201822  This food science and human nutrition master’s degree thesis notes sucralose “may have adverse effects on glucose metabolism in people with obesity, which is the group that most frequently consumes non-nutritive sweeteners to facilitate weight management.”

The findings also highlight the role of sweetness perception in glucose homeostasis, “which supports the notion that sweetness, regardless of an associated caloric contribution, should be consumed in moderation.”

The Artificial Sweetener Splenda Promotes Gut Proteobacteria, Dysbiosis, and Myeloperoxidase Reactivity in Crohn’s Disease–Like Ileitis, 201823,24  This study found Splenda consumption may exacerbate gut inflammation and intensify symptoms in people with Crohn’s disease by promoting harmful gut bacteria.

A letter25 to the editor argued against the findings, but at least one of the protesting writers, V. Lee Grotz, works for the company that owns Splenda.26,27

Pharmacokinetics of Sucralose and Acesulfame-Potassium in Breast Milk Following Ingestion of Diet Soda, 201828  This study found sucralose shows up in breast milk after consumption. Considering the effects of sucralose on beneficial gut bacteria, organ health and metabolism, this is a rather crucial piece of information for pregnant women as it may have significant ramifications for their baby’s health.

Other research29 shows sucralose is so ubiquitous it’s even found in groundwater and sanitary wastewater. It persists through sewage treatment, and may therefore be present in your drinking water as well.

Artificial Sweetener such as Sucralose May Promote Inflammation in Human Subcutaneous Fat-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, 201730  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 Effect of Sucralose on Flavor Sweetness in Electronic Cigarettes Varies Between Delivery Devices, 201731  Sucralose is found in a wide variety of products, and not just food. It’s also commonly added to drugs, often without being listed on the label, and even e-cigarette liquids.

This study 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.

According to the authors, “Together these findings indicate that future regulation of sweet flavor additives should focus first on the volatile constituents of e-liquids with the recognition that artificial sweeteners may also contribute to flavor sweetness depending upon e-cigarette design.”

While this study did not look at health effects, previous research32 has shown sucralose, when heated, releases potentially carcinogenic chloropropanols,33 which are part of a class of toxins known as dioxins.

Chronic Sucralose or L-Glucose Ingestion Does Not Suppress Food Intake, 201734  This study demonstrated that when sucralose is consumed along with a low-carbohydrate diet, it “causes a pronounced increase in calories consumed.” In other words, it increases hunger and promotes overeating.
Gut Microbiome Response to Sucralose and Its Potential Role in Inducing Liver Inflammation in Mice, 201735  Echoing the research discussed earlier in this article, this study also found that sucralose alters “the developmental dynamics of the gut microbiome,” and that the sweetener may thus play a role in chronic inflammation.
The Non-Caloric Sweeteners Aspartame, Sucralose and Stevia sp. Induce Specific but Differential Responses to Compartmentalized Adipose Tissue Accumulation, 201736  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, 201637  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.”
Sucralose Promotes Food Intake through NPY and a Neuronal Fasting Response, 201638 Here, sucralose consumption was again linked to increased hunger and food intake. According to the authors, “dietary sucralose creates a sweet/energy imbalance,” which in turn “activates a conserved neuronal starvation response.”
Changes in the Expression of Cell Surface Markers in Spleen Leukocytes in a Murine Model of Frequent Sucralose Intake, 201639  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.”

Sucralose Administered in Feed, Beginning Prenatally Through Lifespan, Induces Hematopoietic Neoplasias in Mice, 201640  This study is significant as it specifically refutes industry claims that sucralose is not carcinogenic. As noted by the authors:

“Long-term carcinogenicity bioassays on rats and mice conducted on behalf of the manufacturer have failed to show the evidence of carcinogenic effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the carcinogenic effect of sucralose in mice, using a sensitive experimental design.

We found a significant dose-related increased incidence of males bearing malignant tumors and a significant dose-related increased incidence of hematopoietic neoplasias in males, in particular at the dose levels of 2,000 ppm and 16,000 ppm

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.”

Effects of Splenda in Experimental Crohn’s Disease, 201441  As in later studies, this one 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.
Sucralose Affects Glycemic and Hormonal Responses to an Oral Glucose Load, 201342 Here, sucralose was found to affect the glycemic and insulin responses in obese individuals who normally did not consume non-nutritive sweeteners. Compared to controls, sucralose ingestion caused a greater incremental increase in peak plasma glucose concentrations, greater increase in insulin, greater peak insulin secretion and a decrease in the insulin clearance rate.
Sucralose, A Synthetic Organochlorine Sweetener: Overview of Biological Issues, 201343 This review highlights a number of health effects associated with sucralose, including alterations in P-glycoprotein 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 body; alterations in the microbial composition in your gastrointestinal tract; mutagenic effects and more.
Popular Sweetener Sucralose as a Migraine Trigger, 200644  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.”

Studies That Support Sucralose Safety Are Nearly Always Produced by Industry

So, what about studies that support Splenda’s safety? A hallmark of such studies is that they’re overwhelmingly done or funded by industry. Following is a sampling of oft-cited studies ostensibly showing that sucralose is safe. As you will see, many of these have conflicts of interest that likely taint their findings, as one or more of the authors have close ties to the industry.

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 201745  This study came to the conclusion that “The collective evidence supports that sucralose has no effect on A1c or glycemic control.”

Conflict of Interest — The lead author, V. Lee Grotz, is the director of global medical and safety science for Heartland Products Group, which owns Splenda. She also previously worked as director of product safety at McNeil Nutritionals (now Johnson & Johnson), which markets and sells Splenda.

Food and Chemical Toxicology, 201746  This review, based on an “extensive database of research” concluded that “sucralose is safe for its intended use as a non-caloric sugar alternative.”

Conflict of Interest — As reported by Marion Nestle,47 this so-called safety study “was commissioned by the Calorie Control Council,48 a trade association representing ‘manufacturers and suppliers of low- and reduced-calorie foods and beverages, including manufacturers and suppliers of more than two dozen different alternative sweeteners, fibers and other low-calorie, dietary ingredients.’”

The authors are also affiliated with Health Science Consultants and Intertek. (One of the authors on this study is also an author on the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology study above).

According to Nestle, the Calorie Control Council has a vested interest in demonstrating that Splenda is safe, and the consultant groups have a vested interest in pleasing the Calorie Control Council.

Nutrition and Cancer, 201649  This scientific review concluded that “sucralose does not demonstrate carcinogenic activity even when exposure levels are several orders of magnitude greater than the range of anticipated daily ingestion levels.”

Conflict of Interest — This is another industry-biased review by Grotz, director of global medical and safety science for Heartland Products Group, which owns Splenda, and former director of product safety at McNeil Nutritionals (now Johnson & Johnson) that markets and sells Splenda.

International Journal of Scientific Research, 201850  This is a rather confusing study showing weight gain in sucralose-treated rats, even though they didn’t eat any more than the control group.

What’s confusing is that the study authors still concluded that sucralose is “safe at least for a period of one month in sublethal doses” even though they believe “the body weight gain after sucralose ingestion needs to be relooked and investigated further.”

American Journal of Physiology, 200951  This Australian study concluded sucralose “does not stimulate insulin, GLP-1 or glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide release or slow gastric emptying in healthy humans.”

Artificial Sweeteners Trick Your Body Into Storing Fat

Those who switch to artificial sweeteners are typically carrying extra pounds and/or are diabetic, or prone to these conditions. Unfortunately, this may be the absolute worst diet change you could implement if you’re overweight or diabetic. Research has repeatedly shown that artificially sweetened no- or low-calorie drinks and other “diet” foods tend to stimulate your appetite, increase cravings for carbs, stimulate fat storage and weight gain, and promote insulin resistance and diabetes.

There are a number of different reasons for this. First of all, artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it’s going to receive sugar (calories), but when the sugar doesn’t arrive, your body signals that it needs more, which results in carb cravings.

This connection between sweet taste and increased hunger can be found in the medical literature going back at least three decades. Following is another sampling of studies looking specifically at the connection between artificial sweeteners — sucralose and others — and weight gain. Repeatedly, studies have shown artificial sweeteners increase your risk of unwanted weight gain, oftentimes to the same or greater degree than regular sugar.

So, if weight control is the reason you’re using these products, you’d be wise to reconsider. Based on the evidence, you’d be better off consuming regular sugar when you want sweet taste. Alternatively, opt for one of the sweeteners discussed at the very end of this article.

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 201552  Seniors aged 65 and over were followed for an average of nine years, and there was a “striking dose-response relationship” between diet soda consumption and waist circumference. This held true even when other factors such as exercise, diabetes and smoking were taken into account.

People who never drank diet soda increased their waist circumference by an average of 0.8 inches during the nine-year observation period. Occasional diet soda drinkers added an average of 1.83 inches to their waist line in that time period. Daily diet soda drinkers gained an average of nearly 3.2 inches —quadruple that of those who abstained from diet soda altogether.

PLOS One 201453  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.
Nature 201454  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.

The Journal of Physiology 201355,56  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.

Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 201357  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.58 The researchers speculate that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.
Appetite 201259  Here, researchers showed that saccharin and aspartame cause greater weight gain than sugar, even when the total caloric intake remains similar.
In 2011, the UT Health Science Center in San Antonio publicized the results of two studies, saying:60

“In the constant battle to lose inches or at least stay the same, we reach for the diet soda. Two studies presented [June 25, 2011] at the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions suggest this might be self-defeating behavior.

Epidemiologists from the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio reported data showing that diet soft drink consumption is associated with increased waist circumference in humans, and a second study that found aspartame raised fasting glucose (blood sugar) in diabetes-prone mice…

Diet soft drink users, as a group, experienced 70 percent greater increases in waist circumference compared with nonusers [Editor’s note: the study was 10 years long]. Frequent users, who said they consumed two or more diet sodas a day, experienced waist circumference increases that were 500 percent greater than those of nonusers.

‘Data from this and other prospective studies suggest that the promotion of diet sodas and artificial sweeteners as healthy alternatives may be ill-advised,’ said Helen P. Hazuda, Ph.D., professor and chief of the Division of Clinical Epidemiology in the School of Medicine. ‘They may be free of calories but not of consequences.’”

Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 201061  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.

artificial sweetener use and 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.”

The Journal of Pediatrics 200662  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.
Journal of the American College of Nutrition 200563  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.
San Antonio Heart Study 200564  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.65 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.
International Journal of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders 200466  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.
International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 200367 — This study, which looked at 3,111 children, found that diet soda, specifically, was associated with higher body mass index (BMI).
Journal of the American Dietetic Association 199168  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.
Physiology and Behavior 199069  Here, they found that aspartame had a time-dependent effect on appetite, “producing a transient decrease followed by a sustained increase in hunger ratings.”
Physiology and Behavior, 198870  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.
Preventive Medicine 198671  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.”

Commonly Reported Splenda Side Effects

Scores of people have reported side effects from using Splenda, ranging from mild to severe. The following are common symptoms, usually noticed within a 24-hour period following consumption of a Splenda product:

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

Continue Reading

Trending