Connect with us

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

Comments

Underworld

Are We Seeing The Power Elite Finally Come Down?

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”–19th century clergyman Theodore Parker

Martin Luther King popularized the quotation above as it was emblematic of his fervent belief that in due time–and he recognized this time could be after he had passed away–true justice would prevail in the world. This notion also resonates with the world’s popular spiritual traditions, where many prophesy that a ‘day of judgment’ would eventually be upon us, a day that would signal the end of one human era and the beginning of another.

Within alternative media, much of this sentiment is currently focused on the high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of rich, powerful, highly-placed people that brave investigators and whistleblowers have revealed, sometimes at the expense of their lives. A growing number of awakening people in this space have suffered great frustration and sorrow from the ongoing immunity to prosecution that the perpetrators of some of the greatest criminal conspiracies in our history have enjoyed under the cover of deception, misinformation, threats,  bribery, and the very effective ridicule of the ‘conspiracy theory’.

When it is all said and done, we may come to realize that our whole lives have been lived amidst an institutionalized ‘Perversion of Justice,’ to quote the excellent Miami Herald investigative exposé on the crimes of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who is actually the focal point of this article. A newly unsealed indictment against Epstein may signal a ray of hope that the dawn of the fabled ‘day of judgment’ may have just arisen on our planet.

Epstein Arrested July 6th

If you haven’t heard about Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest, here is the information coming from a Miami Herald article entitled ‘Epstein’s Arrest Could Bring Down Many Other Powerful Individuals‘: 

Jeffrey Epstein, 66, was arrested at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey shortly before 4 p.m. Saturday, July 6th as he arrived on his private jet from Paris.

About an hour after they picked him up, federal agents arrived at his imposing Manhattan townhouse, breaking down the door to execute search warrants.

The fact that search warrants were issued shows that federal investigators have new evidence against Epstein beyond the sex cases he was given federal immunity for in Florida in 2008, legal experts told the Miami Herald.

The reason they know there is new evidence is because they couldn’t use evidence from a Florida court case to get a search warrant in the state of New York. So the warrant, at least, was based on sufficient evidence of criminality in New York. It also should be noted that the Department of Justice has said that it is not rescinding the plea deal Jeffrey Epstein got in his previous conviction even though it has been determined to have been illegal.

Although details of the case remain undisclosedthere are indications that others involved in his crimes could be charged or named as cooperating witnesses.

The fact that others involved in his crimes could be charged is quite significant, since it indicates that law enforcement and the judiciary are not shying away from proving a CONSPIRACY in this case. This is quite different from his earlier conviction in Florida in 2008, which was ‘soliciting an underage girl for prostitution.’

In a larger sense, it seems as though the days of our law enforcement and judiciary avoiding the conspiracies perpetrated by the rich and famous are ending. The NXIVM Sex Cult convictions was a recent indication. We are now getting a clearer picture that much of the ills in our known history are the result of the criminal conspiracy of powerful people, and no longer are we buying the ‘conspiracy theory’ slander.

Epstein Indictment Unsealed July 8th

Upon reading the indictment in full, the two counts being brought against Epstein are: Sex Trafficking Conspiracy (Count 1) and  Sex Trafficking (Count 2). These are taken directly from the indictment:

(Count 1, Sex Trafficking Conspiracy) From at least in or about 2002, up to and including in or about 2005, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offence against the United States, to wit, sex trafficking of minors, in violation of title 18, United States Code, section 1591(a) and (b).

(Count 2, Sex Trafficking): From at least in or about 2002, up to and including in or about 2005, in the Southern District of New York, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, willfully and knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, did recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, and obtain by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, and did aid and abet the same, to wit, EPSTEIN recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, and obtained numerous individuals who were less than 18 years old, including but not limited to Minor Victim-1, as described above, and who were then caused to engage in at least one commercial sex act in Manhattan, New York. (Title 18, United States Code, section 1591(a), (b)(2) and 2.).

In other words, he is not being charged with having sex with underage girls as such, although the fact that he did will be demonstrated in the trial in order to prove that he engaged in sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy.

We will note here that there is no mention in the indictment about Epstein’s role in providing underage girls to other famous people, such as Bill Clinton, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew of England, among others, who allegedly were ‘clients’ of Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and were named in the flight logs to his private island of Little St. James, dubbed ‘Pedo Island.’

However, this indictment has been enough to motivate Bill Clinton to have a spokesperson put out a public denial of his involvement in any of Epstein’s crimes:

“President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York. In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane: one to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the work of the Clinton Foundation.” (source)

“Staff, supporters of the foundation, and his Secret Service detail traveled on every leg of every trip. He had one meeting with Epstein in his Harlem office in 2002, and around the same time made one brief visit to Epstein’s New York apartment with a staff member and his security detail. He’s not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade, and he has never been to Little St. James IslandEpstein’s ranch in New Mexico, or his residence in Florida.” (source)

This despite a 2016 Fox report citing court documents that Clinton flew on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” to Little St. James island 26 times.

This is just one sign that it is not business as usual for the rich and powerful people for whom there are rampant allegations of criminal behavior but who have not been indicted for them. Again, while the criminal charges against Jeffrey Epstein do not directly involve any of his rich and powerful friends, there is always the possibility that testimony implicating such people could be made public during this trial, and perhaps that is what people like Bill Clinton are now afraid of.

Prosecutor’s News Conference July 8th

The news conference that announced the unsealing of Epstein’s indictment was very clear and forthright about the crimes Epstein committed and the repugnant nature of these crimes. Rather than operating in a veil of secrecy, like we are so used to in the past, there was an openness and explicitness about these crimes, something that I feel has been happening regarding sex trafficking crimes since early in the Trump presidency, with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others. If you watch the video of the news conference below, you might agree that U. S. Attorney Geoff Berman seems to be sincere in offering victims the support of the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and asking victims to come forward to have their day in court and help bring perpetrators to justice:

While the charged conduct is from a number of years ago, it is still profoundly important to the many alleged victims, now young women. They deserve their day in court, and we are proud to be standing up for them by bringing this indictment. Combating sex trafficking and exploitation of children is a priority for this office, and for the Department of Justice, as the sexual abuse of a minor can have devastating effects on victims, often lasting for years. That is why my office will not rest, until perpetrators of these types of crimes are brought to justice. Victims’ voices, including the many voices of Epstein’s alleged victims, must be heard. To that end, I want to say to anyone who is watching this, or hearing about our prosecution, if you believe you are a victim of this man, Jeffrey Epstein (pointing at Epstein’s picture), or you have evidence or information relating to the conduct alleged in the indictment unsealed today, we want to hear from you. Please call 1-800-CALL-FBI. That’s 1-800-CALL-FBI.

If there are victims out there who have heard this message and are afraid to speak up, it is quite understandable. The entire culture we have been living in has up to now consistently failed victims again and again, not just for not having been protected in the first place, but then for having their testimony ignored and not acted upon when they go to law enforcement, and again to be unprotected from threats and otherwise improperly treated during the judicial process.

Having said that, victims who have not spoken in the past still may consider this as an opportunity to have their day in court. Although I can’t be certain, I am seeing many indications that things are different right now, and that there is an earnest desire not only to prosecute these crimes to the full extent of the law, but to protect and honor the victims.

If we go back to his Epstein’s earlier conviction, it seems as though such an earnest desire was not there. Epstein was shown to have attempted to intimidate many of the would-be accusers, or pay them off in exchange for non-disclosure. From the government side, then-prosecutor and current Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta let Epstein walk away with a sentence that some have called ‘the most lenient plea deal in history.’ However, according to Vicki Ward, who has written extensively on Epstein, when Acosta interviewed for the Secretary of Labor position, he told the Trump transition that

‘He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.” ‘

Like Clinton, who has been out trying to deny allegations connecting him with the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, Acosta is out there defending his plea deal as justified and even noble, and certainly is giving no indication that he had been bullied by intelligence agencies. (Update July 12th: Alex Acosta has just resigned from his position as Secretary of Labor)

This is another little clue that adds to the notion that the rich and powerful are starting to get concerned, and are trying to get out in front of the story they see unfolding in the public arena. It seems less likely that U. S. Attorney Geoff Berman will cave in to threats from ‘above’, and as mentioned before, may be inviting witness to come forward in order to implicate more high-profile people in these activities.

Epstein Detention Hearing July 15th

I believe what happens at Epstein’s detention hearing on July 15th will reveal a lot. This is when it will be determined if Epstein will have to remain in detention prior to the trial. Prosecutors have argued strenuously that Epstein should be detained without bail pending trial.

Defense lawyers have proposed a bail package on Thursday that would allow Epstein to remain out of jail pending trial and live instead in ‘home detention’ at his Upper East Side mansion, one of the largest residences in Manhattan and valued at $77 million, according to court documents. The arrangement also would put Epstein under electronic monitoring by GPS, require him to post a “substantial” personal recognizance bond secured by his Manhattan home, and deregister and ground his private jet.

These are greater lengths than rich and powerful people are used to having to offer in order to be free pending trial. Indeed, the defense appears to be on the defensive more than in the past when representing someone as high-profile as Epstein. If the court decides to keep Epstein in detention pending trial, this will be another clue that the power has shifted significantly. If Epstein is let out on bail, then we may still have reason for concern.

The Takeaway

I have noted here that there is some indication, based on the recent arrest and indictment of Jeffrey Epstein, that the rich and powerful elite who have perpetrated horrendous crimes against humanity are no longer immune to being brought to justice.

Now, if we can piece together Jeffrey Epstein’s past activities and connections with other high-profile people in a way that starts to give us the big picture, we may have even more compelling reasons to believe that a cavalcade of justice is going to be served on a global elite that has ruled the planet since time immemorial. For this reason, I will soon be working on a companion article to this one, exploring information about how Epstein actually became a billionaire, his connection to the ruling class, and speculations about the real activities that have gone on at Little St. James island.

As always, awareness is the key. Know the truth, and it shall set you free. For the sake of the victims, for the sake of humanity, I invite you to continue exploring with me the difficult and painful revelations about the past treatment of human beings by the global elite. That will help us come to understand the patterns of deceit and control that have been used against us, in order to empower ourselves to walk away from this entire system and free humanity in the process.

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

The 5G Dragnet

James Corbett, Corbett Report
Waking Times

Telecom companies are currently scrambling to implement fifth-generation cellular network technology. But the world of 5G is a world where all objects are wired and constantly communicating data to one another. The dark truth is that the development of 5G networks and the various networked products that they will give rise to in the global smart city infrastructure, represent the greatest threat to freedom in the history of humanity.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

Elon Musk warns A.I. could create an ‘immortal dictator from which we can never escape’

  • Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said that artificial intelligence “doesn’t have to be evil to destroy humanity.”
  • In a new documentary, “Do You Trust This Computer?”, Musk warned the creation of superintelligence could lead to an “immortal dictator.”
  • Musk believes that humans should merge with AI to avoid the risk of becoming irrelevant.

Superintelligence — a form of artificial intelligence (AI) smarter than humans — could create an “immortal dictator,” billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk warned.

In a documentary by American filmmaker Chris Paine, Musk said that the development of superintelligence by a company or other organization of people could result in a form of AI that governs the world.

“The least scary future I can think of is one where we have at least democratized AI because if one company or small group of people manages to develop godlike digital superintelligence, they could take over the world,” Musk said.

“At least when there’s an evil dictator, that human is going to die. But for an AI, there would be no death. It would live forever. And then you’d have an immortal dictator from which we can never escape.”

The documentary by Paine examines a number of examples of AI, including autonomous weapons, Wall Street technology and algorithms driving fake news. It also draws from cultural examples of AI, such as the 1999 film “The Matrix” and 2016 film “Ex Machina.”

Musk cited Google’s DeepMind as an example of a company looking to develop superintelligence. In 2016, AlphaGo, a program developed by the company, beat champion Lee Se-dol at the board game Go. It was seen a major achievement in the development of AI, after IBM’s Deep Blue computer defeated chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997.

Musk said: “The DeepMind system can win at any game. It can already beat all the original Atari games. It is super human; it plays all the games at super speed in less than a minute.”

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO said that artificial intelligence “doesn’t have to be evil to destroy humanity.”

“If AI has a goal and humanity just happens to be in the way, it will destroy humanity as a matter of course without even thinking about it. No hard feelings,” Musk said.

“It’s just like, if we’re building a road and an anthill just happens to be in the way, we don’t hate ants, we’re just building a road, and so, goodbye anthill.”

Last year, Musk warned that the global race toward AI could result in a third world war. The entrepreneur has also suggested that the emerging technology could pose a greater risk to the world than a nuclear conflict with North Korea.

Musk believes that humans should merge with AI to avoid the risk of becoming irrelevant. He is the co-founder of Neuralink, a start-up that reportedly wants to link the human brain with a computer interface.

He quit the board of OpenAI, a non-profit organization aimed at promoting and developing AI safely, in February.

Source www.cnbc.com

Continue Reading

Trending