Connect with us

Health

The Top 5 Reasons To Never Use Splenda

Avatar

Published

on

This article posted here with permission, from Greenmedinfo.com, written by the founder, Sayer JiFor more news from them, you can sign up for their newsletter here

advertisement - learn more

Splenda is marketed as a no-calorie, no-guilt sugar substitute. Blood sugar stable, it “passes right through” the body, so it’s safe for diabetics AND you won’t gain weight! Are these claims masking the ugly truth about this chemical imposter? As mounting research shows, when it comes to our diet, there is no free lunch.

--> Join us on Telegram: Be sure you get our most important and latest content by joining our free Telegram channel. You can also meet and chat with like minds! Click here to join.

The allure is plain to see: a sweetener made from sugar, that tastes like sugar, but has zero calories. If the marketing is to be believed, this product is better than the real thing. It’s everything we love, with all of the evils removed.

When it comes to product marketing, beware the free lunch. Despite claims by the manufacturers that Splenda use is part of a healthy lifestyle, research is piling up that tells a very different story.

From the myth-busting studies linking Splenda to diabetes and weight-gain to sobering research showing increased risks of cancer, and more, our sucralose research portal reveals 22 different signs of trouble associated with this artificial sweetener.

Before we dive into the top reasons to avoid Splenda, let’s separate fact from fiction regarding exactly what this false promise really is.

advertisement - learn more

What IS Splenda?

The brand name “Splenda” refers to the chemical compound sucralose. The story of this substance does not attempt to conceal its bizarre origin: The year was 1974, when a chemist at a British college was told to “test” this new creation. Instead, he heard “taste,” which he did. The substance had an intensely sweet impact on the tongue, and like that, a new “food” was created for the public.

Seeing the actual chemical name of Splenda makes the synthetic product’s true nature much clearer:

1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside

Although the product is touted as being derived from sugar, sucralose, aka Splenda, is not a form of sucrose, or cane sugar. Natural sugar is a hydrocarbon built around 12 carbon atoms. Sucralose is produced through substituting three hydroxyl groups (hydrogen + oxygen) with three chlorine atoms in the sugar (sucrose) molecule.

When sugar molecules are transformed into Splenda, they become chlorocarbons, the same chemical family as the deadly pesticide, DDT, disinfectants like Clorox Bleach, and the WWI poison gas, dichlorourea. Thanks to its sugary simulation, this dangerous toxicant has earned a place on grocery store shelves and in products worldwide.

Who’s Protecting You?

You may be thinking, “The FDA would never approve this if it wasn’t safe.” Common sense dictates that trying to pass toxic chemicals off as foods would never be allowed to happen in civilized society, right?

Sadly, our collective past has proven that regulatory safety nets often fail to protect consumer safety. Artificial sweeteners like sucralose and aspartame are approved for sale in 90 nations around the world, despite overwhelming evidence linking them to a wide range of serious health conditions, such as cancer, liver failure, and brain damage.

But as concerns about sucralose mount, the scientific consensus is taking notice. A recent Italian study linking Splenda to leukemia in mice prompted the Center for the Public Interest in Science to downgrade the safety classification for Splenda from “safe” to “caution.”

New evidence indicates that many of the associated health concerns present at even lower exposure levels than the manufacturers would have us believe. “Use caution” may prove to be an understatement with serious health consequences.

How Much is Too Much?

While manufacturers go to great lengths to cherry-pick studies in which damage occurs only in high doses, research shows the amount of Splenda required to cause toxic effects is much lower than current guidelines allow. In fact, the acceptable daily intake of Splenda may be set hundreds of times too high to ensure safety.

In 1998, the FDA approved an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans of 5 mg/kg per day, based on toxicity studies in rats measuring observed effect level. This safety limit was based on observations of the rats’ outward presentations of disease symptoms.

Since that time, much has been learned about the importance of what is unseen in our biological ecosystem, namely the trillions of microbes that constitute the microbiome. Research into the impact of Splenda on gut health concluded that the observation threshold for adverse effects to the microbiome of rats was 454 times lower than when initially measured, indicating that significant effects are expected in humans who are consuming far less than the advertised acceptable daily intake of Splenda.

Top 5 Reasons to Avoid Splenda

When you understand what Splenda is, and realize there is no regulatory safety net between you and harm, it makes understanding the facts about Splenda even more critical. Here are five alarming reasons to avoid this artificial sweetener.

1. It’s toxic and carcinogenic

Regulatory agencies may be slow to recognize the signs, but our bodies know immediately what is food, and what is poison. A recent study published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that rats metabolize sucralose in the same way they metabolize other harmful drugs and toxins. The body treats Splenda as a poison, and works fast to remove it.

Scientists found other toxicological issues with long-term exposure to sucralose. Bowel enlargement, kidney mineralization, and changes to pelvic tissue were some of the side-effects of doses well within limits of the allowable daily intake level set for humans.

These findings do much to disprove the manufacturers claim that this substance merely passes, unaltered, through the digestive tract. The makers of Splenda argue that this “remarkably stable” chemical transits, unchanged, into the urine and feces, when in fact, up to 11% to 27% is absorbed into the body (FDA, 1999).

What effects will these accumulated chemicals have on our health? According to James Bowen, M.D:

“Any chlorocarbons not excreted intact from the body can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs.”

Warning: Heating Splenda Increases the Risks

Recent findings add increased urgency to existing safety concerns surrounding Splenda’s heat-stability.  Advertised as “ideal for baking”, results show that Splenda is even more dangerous when heated to a mere 248℉.

At this relatively low-heat level, Splenda degrades into toxic compounds like chloropropanol and deadly dioxins. This evidence presents a sharp contrast to the claim that Splenda can safely be used in high-heat processes.

2. Increases risks of diabetes and obesity

Splenda is marketed as a way to “get a little sweetness in your life” without any of the concerns surrounding weight gain or sugar sensitivity. It’s becoming clear just how false this advertising really is. In fact, the trade-off may be far worse than the real thing.

Studies on human test subjects show that sucralose alters the body’s ability to process glucose, creating glucose intolerance, metabolic disturbances, and diabetes-promoting effects that are key factors in obesity. These harmful responses occur despite sucralose containing no calories and being classified as a ‘non-nutritive sweetener.’

In one such trial, a single dose of sucralose led to increases in plasma glucose concentrations, a 20% increase in insulin levels, a 22% greater peak insulin secretion rate, and a 7% decrease in insulin sensitivity.

This human study linked Splenda to diabetes-associated metabolic changes, including increased appetite and weight gain, calling into question its value as a sweetener for those suffering with, or wishing to prevent, blood sugar disorders.

If these sweeteners pass through the gut intact, and are mostly unabsorbed by the body, what could be responsible for these adverse impacts on gut function and insulin response?

It’s in the Microbiota

Researchers hypothesized, and later proved, that gut microbiota drove these adverse effects, including “increased weight and waist-to-hip ratio; higher fasting blood glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, and elevated markers of fatty liver disease.”

They observed significant changes to the gut bacterial composition of mice consuming artificial sweeteners, which brings us to the next reason to avoid Splenda: its effects on the all-important intestinal microbiome.

3. Harms the GI tract

Research into the microbiome continues to yield breakthrough discoveries on the intimate relationship between the ‘enteric brain’ and the central nervous system. This connection may reveal previously unrecognized consequences of the use of this artificial sweetener. It’s negative impact on the microbiome is clear:

  • Sucralose reduced the number of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (e.g., lactobacilli, bifidobacteria),
  • While increasing the count of detrimental bacteria (e.g., enterobacteria).
  • Adverse effects on gut flora did not return to normal (baseline) despite the allowance of a 3-month recovery period.
  • Sucralose altered the pH of the gastrointestinal tract, a prime factor in the development of disease states

These findings coincide with a global uptick in inflammatory bowel disease, particularly evident in Canada, where Sucralose has been proposed to be a primary driver of this disturbing trend.

4. Contaminates breast milk

The use of sucralose has grown so prevalent, even our most vulnerable populations are incapable of opting out of exposure. A recent government-funded study found sucralose contaminated 65% of all breast milk samples assayed.

The groundbreaking study, “Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk“, found that sucralose survives maternal metabolism and enters breast milk in the majority of samples tested. The presence of non-nutritive sweeteners in the breast milk was irrespective of whether the mother knowingly consumed the substance.

Adequate proof of the safety of sucralose in infants is not available, and tests are unethical to perform in human subjects. This is one reason for the use of animals in surrogate risk assessments. One such assessment involves testing a chemical’s safety by determining the amount needed to kill 50% of rodents within a short time frame (“acute toxicity”), and then deducing an “acceptable level of harm” to humans. This is done primarily by adjusting for body weight differences between rodents and humans.

This outdated and misleading standard does not account for low-dose, chronic exposures over time, nor does it account for the synergistic toxicities of multiple chemical exposures occurring simultaneously in real-world situations. Until such rigorous testing can be performed, the use of non-nutritive sweeteners should be halted by those wishing to conceive, and women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

5. Suppresses Thyroid Function, Disrupts Hormones

A study published in the European Journal of Nutrition is the first study of its kind to evaluate the effects of Splenda on thyroid function and metabolism.

Their findings reveal that sucralose is an endocrine disruptor: it disrupts the body’s hormonal systems. In this study, resultant effects included thyroid hormone suppression, increased appetite, and weight gain.

The researchers believed that Splenda’s adverse effects would be reflected in “thyroid histopathology,” i.e. increased instances of thyroid lesions and tumors. Could this be one of the drivers behind the mysterious global uptick in thyroid cancer diagnoses?

In this study, researchers lament the widespread use of non-nutritive sweeteners, particularly concerning due to lack of research on their effects on thyroid:

“Non-nutritive sweeteners are the most widely used food additives worldwide. However, their metabolic outcomes are still a matter of controversy and their effect on the thyroid activity, a key regulator of metabolism, has not been previously studied.”

The chief aim of this study was to reveal the effect of “sweet-type flavor on selected parameters of thyroid activity.”

105 rats were divided into 3 groups that could consume, free-choice, one of three different diets. The three, wheat starch-based diets had identical caloric content, yet differed in the following ways:

  • Diet #1 contained no sugar
  • Diet #2 contained 10 grams of sucrose (cane sugar)
  • Diet #3 contained .0167 grams of sucralose, enough to create the same sweet flavor intensity as Diet #2

Because previous research has established that carbohydrates directly affect thyroid, this study was designed to isolate only the difference between the artificial and natural sweetener. Results indicated that both the presence and type of sweet-flavor carrier effects thyroid activity.

Compared to the diet with cane sugar which stimulates thyroid activity, sucralose diminished thyroid hormone activity. Additionally, key hormone concentrations (T4 & T3) were lower for subjects eating sucralose than in either the sugary or non-sweet diets. Researchers determined that sucralose significantly altered the thyroid and metabolic functions of the animals, with symptoms resembling those of hypothyroidism.

This study proved sucralose is not metabolically inert, the claim often made when questions of toxicity are raised. The results provide compelling evidence that the difference in thyroid and metabolic effects observed between the study groups were due to sucralose’s significant and complex toxicological properties.

For more information and the latest medical research, check out GreenMedInfo’s sucralose research database.

Check out the research on the health benefits of natural sweeteners like honey, and stevia, a no-calorie alternative to synthetic sweeteners.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

New Study Claims Vaccinated Children Appear To Be “Significantly Less Healthy” Than Unvaccinated

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study has examined some health outcomes of vaccinated children and unvaccinated children. They found that the vaccinated group require far more healthcare than the unvaccinated group.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are there no studies comparing the health of vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children? This is one of the first of its kind.

What Happened: A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has, according to the authors, discovered that vaccinated children require far more healthcare than unvaccinated children. At least that’s what they found from the group of children used to collect the data.

This type of study is interesting to see given the fact that studies comparing unvaccinated children to vaccinated children are lacking, there aren’t many of them. These studies are, as the authors state, “rarely conducted.”

None of the post licensure-vaccine safety studies have included comparisons to groups completely unexposed to vaccines.

The study concludes that “the unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated.

The data source for this study was all billing and medical records of Integrative Pediatrics, a private pediatric practice located in Portland, Oregon.

The study emphasizes the need for more research given the fact that, again, there is hardly any in this area. They concur with Mawson et al., 2017 , who reported: “Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health” and with Hooker and Miller 2020, who wrote: “Further study is necessary to understand the full spectrum of health effects associated with childhood vaccination”.

These studies mentioned above also had similar findings.

According to the authors,

Vaccines are widely regarded as safe and effective within the medical community and are an integral part of the current American medical system. While the benefits of vaccination have been estimated in numerous studies, negative and nonspecific impact of vaccines on human health have not been well studied. Most recently, it has been determined that variation exists in individual responses to vaccines, that differences exist in the safety profile of live and inactivated vaccines, and that simultaneous administration of live and inactivated vaccines may be associated with poor outcomes. Studies have not been published that report on the total outcomes from vaccinations, or the increase or decrease in total infections in vaccinated individuals.

This is important because, although vaccinations in some cases may protect against the target disease, what else might they be doing not only on the short term, but in the long term? It’s also important to point out that in other cases, like the HPV vaccine, there is no evidence that they do protect against the target disease.

Another great example comes from a study published in 2017 that examined the introduction of the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (DTP) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1908s. They found that the DTP vaccine was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. The authors state the following:

All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though (this) vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.

This new study points out,

Pre-licensure clinical trials for vaccines cannot detect long-term outcomes since safety review periods following administration are typically 42 days or less. Long-term vaccine safety science relies on post-market surveillance studies using databases such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC’s) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink. VAERS is a passive reporting system in which, according to Ross 2011 , “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) can, in principle, according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM, 2013), be used to compare outcomes of vaccines and unvaccinated children. Based on the IOM’s recommendation, in 2016, the CDC published a white paper (CDC, 2016; Glanz et al., 2016) on studying the safety of their recommended pediatric vaccine schedule. Unfortunately, to date, no studies have been published comparing a diversity of outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Below is one of many interesting graphs from the study. The orange line represents the vaccinated children, and the blue one represents the unvaccinated.

For methods used, limitations, and more please refer to the study.

The parents that I work with in New York, that I see around the country are very concerned that their rights are being taken away, that their knowledge about the science is being pushed away by an agenda that only says, unvaccinated children are a problem.

No study has every been done in this country, appropriately, to address the health outcomes of children who are vaccinated versus the children who are unvaccinated. I have been seeing families in my practice for over 20 years, that have opted out of vaccination, they are the healthiest children I’ve ever seen. – Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a NY licensed paediatrician

Why This Is Important: Given the fact that the  National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) has paid out approximately $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children, there are clearly, in my opinion, some valid points here, especially against compulsory vaccinations. Again, as mentioned above, VAERS only accounts for an estimated 1 percent of vaccine injuries, this one percent is what is recorded.

A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Take the MMR vaccine for example, if you search on VAERS, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. Again, don’t forget about that 1% figure cited in the study.

There are a number of legitimate concerns about vaccine safety that would require quite a long and very in-depth article, but I just wanted to let the reader know here briefly. Aluminum for example, is another concern I’ve written quite a lot about.

These are a few reasons as to why vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, even among many physicians and scientists. This has actually been observed for a while. For example, one study published in the journal EbioMedicine  in 2013 outlines this point, stating in the introduction:

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts and science. These two dimensions are at the core of vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviours and attitudes varying according to context , vaccine and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

At a 2019 conference on vaccines put on by the World Health Organization this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced, as you can see, by the authors in the study above. At the conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.

She also stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…

Is there not enough information here alone to warrant informed consent? I have a hard time understanding how someone who would take the new COVID-19 vaccine, for example, would be worried about me contracting the virus if they are protected?

Why have we given governments the ability to mandate such actions? Why have we given them so much power to dictate what we do and how we want to live? Is this really how we want to live, is this really the kind of world we want to create?

A Deeper Discussion. What Do We Do About The Increasing Vaccine Pressure? 

So many are concerned about mandatory vaccination. Further, many are starting to see that mandated vaccines may not be the future, but that services and options will be denied unless you can prove you have been vaccinated. Is it still the time to point the blame? Or is there a radical new approach we must take? A shift in our worldview, re-examining who we think we are, why we are here and what world we want to create is where we will begin to find the answers we are looking for. Has the dualistic fight the enemy method worked in the past? Are we not still here regardless of having used this method in the past? Maybe it’s time for a new conversation, one that looks at ourselves in a whole new light. This perhaps is how we will solve our ongoing challenges at their core.

Below is a deeper discussion about it from CE Founder Joe Martino.  You can follow me, Arjun, here on Instagram.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Awareness

COVID-19 Has A 99.95% Survival Rate For People Under 70 – Stanford Professor of Medicine

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there such a large divide between so many doctors and scientists with regards to the response to the pandemic? Why is one side constantly ridiculed and censored by Big Tech companies? Should governments have the authority to mandate lockdowns?

What Happened: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in California recently appeared on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles.

During the conversation, Dr. Bhattacharya said that the survival rate from COVID-19, based on approximately 50 studies that’ve been published providing seroprevalence data, for people over 70 years of age is 95 percent. For people under the age of 70, the survival rate of COVID-19 is 99.95 percent. He went on to state that the flu is more dangerous than COVID-19 for children, and that we’ve (America) had more flu deaths in children this year than COVID deaths.

Obviously, his comments are open to interpretation and similar comments floating around the internet have been refuted by Facebook ‘fact-checkers.’

Bhattacharya has cited this study, published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization to come to his conclusion, along with, as mentioned above, many more.

These facts and many others are what inspired Bhattacharya, along with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology to create The Great Barrington Declaration.

The declaration strongly opposes lockdown measures that are being and have been put in place by various governments around the globe. The declaration has an impressive list of co-signers from renowned doctors and professors in the field from around the world, and now has nearly 50,000 signatures from doctors and scientists. The declaration also has approximately 660,000 signatures from concerned citizens.

The Declaration states,

The Declaration was written from a global public health and humanitarian perspective, with special concerns about how the current COVID-19 strategies are forcing our children, the working class and the poor to carry the heaviest burden.  The response to the pandemic in many countries around the world, focused on lockdowns, contact tracing and isolation, imposes enormous unnecessary health costs on people. In the long run, it will lead to higher COVID and non-COVID mortality than the focused protection plan we call for in the Declaration.

The declaration also states that as herd immunity builds, the risk of infection to all, including the most vulnerable, falls. Bhattacharya has explained that he and his colleagues don’t see herd immunity as a strategy but as a simple “biological fact,” adding, “It will eventually happen. That’s how epidemics end. So, the only question is how you get there with the least amount of human misery, death, and harm.” The best way, he said, is to “acknowledge who actually is in danger and devote enormous creativity, resources, and energy to protect them.”

The Declaration recommends implementing measures that protect the vulnerable without locking down the entire population, shutting down businesses and limiting people’s access to health-care.

Stefan Baral, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, said he supported adaptive interventions to protect at-risk people rather than broad lockdowns of entire populations. He said his mother lives in Sweden and “there’s nowhere else I would have wanted my mom to be. I love my mom and I feel she’s safe there.”

A report published in the British Medical Journal  titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May . According to the data, Covid-19 only accounts for 10,000 of the 30,000 excess deaths that have been recorded in senior care facilities during the height of the pandemic. The article suggests and also quotes British Health officials stating that these unexplained deaths may have occurred because Quarantine measures have prevented seniors from accessing the health care that they need.

Bhattacharya has also cited an estimate from the United Nations World Food Program indicating that pandemic lockdowns causing breaks in the food chain are expected to push 135 million people into severe hunger and starvation by the end of this year.

These are just a few  many examples and concerns the declaration is referring to.

Another perspective on these survival rates? According to  Professor Robyn Lucas, head of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University,

Survival rates and the percentage of the population who have not died are two very different numbers, “They are using the whole population, rather than the number who have diagnosed infection. So this is not really ‘survival’ – to survive a disease you have to have the disease in the first place,” Prof Lucas told AAP FactCheck in an email. (source)

Why This Is Important: Never before have we seen so many renowned doctors, scientists, and experts in the field oppose the recommendations and actions taken by the World Health Organization and multiple governments to combat a health crises. The fact that there is a great divide among the scientific and medical community makes one ponder how governments can have the mandatory authority to lockdown our planet when there isn’t really a scientific consensus to do so.

What’s also quite concerning is the fact that big tech companies, like Facebook, have been actively censoring and flagging information and opinions that oppose those of the WHO and government health authorities. Unpopular opinions and recommendations aren’t really given any attention by mainstream media either, and they’re often ridiculed by them. The Great Barrington Declaration is a great example.

Because of all the discrepancy, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for governments to simply present the science and make strong recommendations and leave the citizenry to do what they’d like to do. To each is own, that’s just my opinion. I believe we are more than capable enough, and intelligent enough to determine the right course of action for ourselves. A lot of people have lost trust in their government and this is because actions taken by them have simply called into question whether or not they make decisions with humanities best interests at heart.

Are they really executing the will of the people?

When it comes to COVID-19, we’ve seen that this may not be the case. Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has published an article about COVID-19, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine in the British Medical Journal.

It it, he states the following:

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

When we allow governments and give them the power to use force when so many people disagree with their recommendations, it makes one question just how much power do thee entities have? And why? Why do we choose to be governed in such a way? Why aren’t we free to make our own decisions?

More important than facts is our ability to get along with one another and see from the perspective of another. We must understand why those who disagree with us feel the way they do, and they must try to understand us. Constantly arguing and disagreeing with each other and always being in a state of constant separation doesn’t solve anything. Now more than ever we need to respect one another and try see from a perspective that’s not our own. Can’t we find some middle ground and all get along? It’s ok to ask questions and challenge our governments, in fact, it should be encouraged.

Many of us are feeling the loss of freedoms, and even with new measures like that which is presented in this article, we are now seeing how our reality may become limited should we choose not to participate in certain measures we don’t agree with. The trouble we seem to be having is determining how to communicate about COVID, the fears we have around it, and how to come together as a community to ‘draw a line’ as to where we may be taking things too far.

Can we truly accept that controlling everyone’s lives and what they can and can’t do is the best thing to do with an extremely low mortality virus? Does this indicate the level of fear we have towards life? The issues with our general health? If the worry is straining health care systems, are we seeing the limitations of how our rigid social infrastructures can’t be flexible and maybe it’s time to look at a new way of living within society? Perhaps a new way built on a completely different worldview?

No, I’m not talking about no Great Reset here, I’m talking about something much deeper. I’m talking about re-examining the deep questions of who we are, why we are here and what type of future we truly want to create. Questions that we may have forgotten about as we have gone on chasing what our current worldview and system dangles in front of us. Perhaps it’s time to take a breath and see the crisis’ in front of us as a call to ask some much deeper questions than common conversation invites us to ask.

A great place to start with these questions, and something I deeply urge people to consider doing, is doing something like a media/news fast that includes important questions and reflections designed to re-imagine and examine your worldview. I have just released a new short course on CETV called How To Do An Effective Media Detox. Check out CETV and this course as a great place to start. – Joe Martino

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Awareness

New Research Adds Evidence That Weed Killer Glyphosate Disrupts Hormones

Avatar

Published

on

New research is adding worrisome evidence to concerns that the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate may have the potential to interfere with human hormones.

In a paper published in the journal Chemosphere titled Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review, a trio of scientists concluded that glyphosate appears to have eight out of ten key characteristics associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals . The authors cautioned, however, that prospective cohort studies are still needed to more clearly understand the impacts of glyphosate on the human endocrine system.

The authors, Juan Munoz, Tammy Bleak and Gloria Calaf, each affiliated with the University of Tarapacá in Chile, said their paper is the first review to consolidate the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC).

Some of the evidence suggests that Roundup, Monsanto’s well-known glyphosate-based herbicide, can alter the biosynthesis of the sexual hormones, according to the researchers.

EDCs may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones and are linked with developmental and reproductive problems as well as brain and immune system dysfunction.

The new paper follows publication earlier this year of an assortment of animal studies that indicated glyphosate exposures impact reproductive organs and threaten fertility.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, sold in 140 countries. Introduced commercially in 1974 by Monsanto Co, the chemical is the active ingredient in popular products such as Roundup and hundreds of other weed killers used by consumers, municipalities, utilities, farmers, golf course operators, and others around the world.

Dana Barr, a professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, said the evidence “tends to overwhelmingly indicate that glyphosate has endocrine disrupting properties.”

“It’s not necessarily unexpected since glyphosate has some structural similarities with many other endocrine disrupting pesticides; however, it is more concerning because glyphosate use far surpasses other pesticides,” said Barr, who directs a program within a National Institutes of Health-funded human exposure research center housed at Emory. “Glyphosate is used on so many crops and in so many residential applications such that aggregate and cumulative exposures can be considerable.”

Phil Landrigan, director of the Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and a professor of biology
at Boston College, said the review pulled together “strong evidence” that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.

“The report is consistent with a larger body of literature indicating that glyphosate has a wide range of adverse health effects – findings that overturn Monsanto’s long-standing portrayal of glyphosate as a benign chemical with no negative impacts on human health,” said Landrigan.

EDCs have been a subject of concern since the 1990s after a series of publications suggested that some chemicals commonly used in pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics, detergents, and other substances could have the capacity to disrupt connections between hormones and their receptors.

Scientists generally recognized ten functional properties of agents that alter hormone action, referring to these as ten “key characteristics” of endocrine-disruptors. The ten characteristics are as follows:

EDC’s can:

  • Alter hormone distribution of circulating levels of hormones
  • Induce alterations in hormone metabolism or clearance
  • Alter the fate of hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone receptor expression
  • Antagonize hormone receptors
  • Interact with or activate hormone receptors
  • Alter signal transduction in hormone-responsive cells
  • Induce epigenetic modifications in hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone synthesis
  • Alter hormone transport across cell membranes

The authors of the new paper said a review of the mechanistic data showed that glyphosate met all of the key characteristics with the exception of two:  “Regarding glyphosate, there is no evidence associated with the antagonistic capacity of hormonal receptors,” they said. As well, “there is no evidence of its impact on hormonal metabolism or clearance,” according to the authors.

Research over the last few decades has largely focused on links found between glyphosate and cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL.) In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More than 100,000 people have sued Monsanto in the United States alleging exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them or their loved ones to develop NHL.

The plaintiffs in the nationwide litigation also claim Monsanto has long sought to hide the risks of its herbicides. Monsanto lost three out of three trials and its German owner Bayer AG has spent the last year and a half trying to settle the litigation out of court.

The authors of the new paper took note of the ubiquitous nature of glyphosate, saying “massive use” of the chemical has “led to a wide environmental diffusion,” including rising exposures tied to human consumption of the weed killer through food.

The researchers said that though regulators say the levels of glyphosate residue commonly found in foods are low enough to be safe, they “cannot rule out” a “potential risk” to people consuming foods containing contaminated with the chemical,  particularly grains and other plant-based foods, which often have higher levels than milk, meat or fish products.

U.S. government documents show glyphosate residues have been detected in a range of foods, including organic honey, and granola and crackers.

Canadian government researchers have also reported glyphosate residues in foods. One report issued in 2019 by scientists from Canada’s Agri-Food Laboratories at the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry found glyphosate in 197 of 200 samples of honey they examined.

Despite the concerns about glyphosate impacts on human health, including through dietary exposure, U.S. regulators have steadfastly defended the safety of the chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it has not found any human health risks from exposure to glyphosate.”

Written by Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know, where it was originally posted. 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!