While U.S. health agencies have admitted that myocarditis (heart inflammation), and a related condition called pericarditis (inflammation of the heart sack), are potential side effects of the COVID jab,¹ the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has ignored hundreds of other safety signals that have shown up during their Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). For example, in individuals aged 18 and older, there are 770 safety signals for different adverse events, and more than 500 of them have a stronger safety signal than myocarditis and pericarditis.²

Two recent papers specifically highlight the risk of ophthalmic vascular events, which can lead to blindness, following the COVID jab. Across age groups, the risk more than doubled in the two years following the shot. According to Retsef Levi, that amounts to one additional case for every 300 seniors jabbed (age 64 and older), and one additional case for every 1,000 people jabbed between the ages of 18 and 64. Basically, what we’re talking about are acute ischemic strokes that affect the eyes and can cause permanent loss of vision. It’s important to realize that the primary symptom of retinal vascular occlusion is a sudden change in vision — be it blurry vision, or a partial or complete loss of vision — typically only in one eye. Rarely ever is there pain. Should this happen, seek evaluation immediately. A systematic review of 49 studies published in the journal Vaccines in December 2022, found that most vascular events involving the eyes (46.2%) occurred after the first dose, and were more common after the Pfizer and AstraZeneca shots.

Treatment modalities, including medical therapies, laser photocoagulation, and other surgical therapies Retinal vein occlusion: Treatment – UpToDate

Several factors contributed to the monarchs’ decline. Caterpillars’ sole food, milkweed, was declared a noxious weed that must be eradicated. Flowering plants along roads and unkempt lands — prime habitats — were sprayed. While herbicides killed their food, insecticides used on crops or against mosquitoes weakened and killed butterflies, bees and other pollinators.

Migration, like any great expedition, has small margins for error. En route to and from Mexico, monarchs might not only be starved, baked with climate change and poisoned with pesticides — they could even be getting lost.

Sensing the Earth’s magnetic field is essential for migration, and scientists examining mechanisms that may be disrupted by radio frequency radiation have landed on a light- and magnetic-field sensing biochemical called cryptochrome, found commonly in all species.

Monarchs brave many challenges as they migrate to overwinter in Mexico. To the rescue, human advocates protected corridors (e.g., in the central U.S.) and planted beneficial plants. This isn’t enough. Monarchs are now endangered, and insect-eating and migratory birds are declining in company with struggling insects. Pollinator declines risk fruit and vegetable crops.

There [are] 80,000 chemicals that are registered with the Environmental Protection Agency for commercial use and only 5% have been tested for human toxicity. A common harmful group of widely used industrial chemicals is called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, short-handed as PFAS. The substances are used to make products resistant to water, grease and stains along with an array of other applications. PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down. Thousands of different types of chemicals fall in the PFAS category. The CDC said three types, PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS can remain in the human body for up to nine years, depending on the compound.

Where are PFAs found? The man-made compounds are used by a variety of industries for such things as electronics manufacturing, oil recovery, fire-fighting foams, cleaning products, non-stick cookware, some grease-resistant paper, fast food containers/wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, and candy wrappers, stain resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery, and other fabrics, water resistant clothing; cleaning products’ personal care products (shampoo, easy slide dental floss) and cosmetics (nail polish, eye makeup); paints, varnishes, and sealants. In June 2019, the FDA revealed that it found PFAS in grocery store meats and seafood as well as in chocolate cake. Records also show PFAS in milk and produce coming from some dairies and farms. It was also shown that meat from beef cattle in Michigan contained dangerous levels of a type of PFAS called perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). (The beef was being sold to schools and to consumers at farmers’ markets.) You can be exposed to PFAS by drinking contaminated municipal water or private well water, eating fish caught from water contaminated by PFAS (PFOS, in particular); accidentally swallowing contaminated soil or dust; eating food that was packaged in material that contains PFAS; or using any items mentioned in the last paragraph.

Health Problems: Scientists say exposure to PFAS is associated with a range of health problems, including a heightened risk of developing cancer, birth defects, liver disease, thyroid disease, decreased immunity, hormone disruption and a range of other serious health problems. However, some studies in people have shown that certain PFAS might: affect growth, learning and behavior of infants and older children; lower a woman’s chance of getting pregnant; interfere with the body’s natural hormones; increase cholesterol levels; affect the immune system; decrease vaccine response in children; increase risk of high blood pressure; small decreases in infant birth weights

FDA mitigation? There currently are several state actions underway to try to rein in use of PFAS, and in October the Biden Administration unveiled a “roadmap” aimed at restricting and cleaning up PFAS contamination.The FDA has also received “voluntary commitment letters” from certain large manufacturers, laying out a three-year phase-out of sales of types of PFAS compounds for use in food packaging. That phase-out started in January 2021. But it remains to be seen how tough the FDA is actually going to be in the ongoing effort to minimize PFAS exposure through food.

Detox? Because PFAS are at low levels in some foods and in the environment (air, water, soil, etc.) completely eliminating exposure is unlikely. But you can help by detoxing your body and going on a cleanse that can include the following: activated charcoal, methylated B vitamins and algae, fennel Seed, Buckthorn Bark, Ginger Root, Baikal Skullcap Root, Cascara Sagrada Bark, Senna Leaf, Psyllium Seed, Rhubarb Root, Aloe Vera Leaf (cut without chemicals), Barberry Root, SlipperyElm Bark, White Willow Extract, Boswellia Serrata, Turmeric Root (Curcumin Longa), Cayenne Pepper, Matricaria Recutita (German Chamomille), Marshmallow Root.

Sources:

Options exist, but definitive treatment for PFAS exposure remains elusive | WPBN (upnorthlive.com)

Your Best Option for Getting PFAS & Other Contaminants Out of Your Water? – Radiant Healing Arts Center – Joseph Sciabbarrasi M.D. (holisticdoctorlosangeles.com)

EPA finds PFAS are more toxic than previously thought | Environmental Working Group (ewg.org)

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• The artificial sweetener industry has defended the safety of sucralose (Splenda), stating that it rapidly passes through your body without being broken down and therefore has no biological effects
• Research reveals your body does indeed metabolize sucralose and that it accumulates in your fat cells. Two new metabolites were also identified. As these findings were not part of the original regulatory decision process for sucralose, researchers are calling for a review of its safety and regulatory status
• Sucralose causes definite changes in the liver of treated rats, suggesting toxic effects. According to the researchers, sucralose should be used with caution to avoid liver damage
• Previous research found sucralose reduces gut bacteria by 50%, increases the intestinal pH level and causes biochemical distortions. This was again confirmed in 2018, when all currently approved artificial sweeteners were found to cause DNA damage in, and interfere with, the normal and healthy activity of gut bacteria
• Consuming artificial sweeteners such as sucralose, aspartame, saccharin, neotame, advantame and/or acesulfame potassium-k can impair your appetite regulation and cause weight gain

This article was previously published February 6, 2019, and has been updated with new information.

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 1998¹ 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 E955.² 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 confirm early suspicions, showing it is not an inert substance after all, and 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,³ 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.⁴

What’s more, the absorption of sucralose into the human body was studied on a grand total of eight men.⁵ Based on that study, 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. In my book, “Sweet Deception,” I explain how some of the animal studies also raised questions about the product’s safety, showing:⁶

• 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’

Sucralose has been found to be particularly damaging to your gut. Research⁷ 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:⁸

“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,⁹ 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,¹⁰ 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,¹¹ “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’s makers recommend it for cooking and baking.¹² Plus, sucralose 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.¹³

Researchers Called for New Safety Review in 2018

Another industry claim that has been demolished by science is that sucralose passes unmetabolized through your body and therefore has no biological effects. Alas, research^14,15 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, but it turns out 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 study¹⁶ 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 enlargement^17,18 and kidney calcification.^19,20 Another organ affected by sucralose is your thymus, with studies linking sucralose consumption to shrinkage of the thymus (up to 40 percent^21,22) and an increase in leukocyte populations (immune system cells) in the thymus and lymph nodes.²³

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. Research²⁴ 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

As of January 2022, there are 22,500 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:

Sucralose Safety Studies 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.

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 201555 — 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 201456 — 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 201457 — 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 201358,59 — 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 201360 — 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.61 The researchers speculate that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.

Appetite 201262 — 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:63“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 201064 — This review offers a summary of epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effects of artificial sweeteners on weight, and explains those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward. More than 11,650 children aged 9 to 14 were included in this study.Each daily serving of diet beverage was associated with a BMI increase of 0.16 kg/m2. It also shows the correlation between increased usage of artificial sweeteners in food and drinks, and the corresponding rise in obesity.Source: Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine June 8, 2010,: v83(2)According to the authors:“[F]indings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant … Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners … [A]rtificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence.”

The Journal of Pediatrics 200665 — 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 200566 — 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 200567 — 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.68 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 200469 — 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 200370 — 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 199171 — 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 199072 — 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, 198873 — 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 198674 — 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:

Report Reactions to Splenda and Other Artificial Sweeteners

To determine if you’re having a reaction to artificial sweeteners — be it Splenda, aspartame or any of the others — take the following steps:

1. Eliminate all artificial sweeteners from your diet for two weeks
2. After two weeks, reintroduce your artificial sweetener of choice in a significant quantity (about three servings daily)
3. Avoid other artificial sweeteners during this period
4. Do this for one to three days and take notice of how you feel, especially as compared to when you were abstaining from artificial sweeteners
5. If you don’t notice a difference in how you feel after reintroducing your primary artificial sweetener for a few days, it’s a safe bet you’re able to tolerate it acutely, meaning your body doesn’t have an immediate, adverse response. Just know that this doesn’t mean your health won’t be damaged in the long run
6. If you’ve been consuming more than one type of artificial sweetener, repeat steps 2 through 4 with the next sweetener on your list

If you do experience side effects from an artificial sweetener (or any other food additive for that matter), please report it to the FDA (if you live in the U.S.). It’s easy to make a report — just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state, and make a call to report your reaction.

Keep in mind that some medications may contain sucralose as well, even if it’s not listed on the label. If you continue to experience any of the symptoms above even though you’re avoiding Splenda and other artificial sweeteners, then it may be worth investigating whether any of the medications you’re taking contain artificial sweeteners.

Healthier Sugar Substitutes

Two of the best sugar substitutes are from the plant kingdom: Stevia and Lo Han Kuo (also spelled Luo Han Guo). Stevia, a highly sweet herb derived from the leaf of the South American stevia plant, is sold as a supplement. It’s completely safe in its natural form and can be used to sweeten most dishes and drinks.

Lo Han Kuo is similar to Stevia, but is my personal favorite. I use the Lakanto brand vanilla flavor which is a real treat for me. The Lo Han fruit has been used as a sweetener for centuries, and it’s about 200 times sweeter than sugar.

A third alternative is to use pure glucose, also known as dextrose. Dextrose is only 70 percent as sweet as sucrose, so you’ll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than regular sugar. Still, it’s well worth it for your health as it does not contain any fructose whatsoever. Contrary to fructose, glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is a far safer sugar alternative.

+ Sources and References Previous ArticleThese Herbs Can Help Suppress Tumor DevelopmentView More Show Comments (100)Post your commentTop

What if I am reincarnated as mRNAs’ssss. And let’s go really sci-fi and imagine I am reincarnated as mRNAssss’s wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) bubble. And what if, I happened to be injected into someone’s arm muscle. Well, surely, since I am injected intramuscularly with a pretty heavy gauge needle (22–25-gauge 5/8 inch (16 mm), I get inserted pretty deep and in copious amounts into muscle tissue.  I can’t really see anything yet because of this fat bubble I am in (LNP). But all of a sudden I feel us moving! So fast!

Since we have been reincarnated into mRNAs, we can simply find ribosomes and start translating ourselves into the butterfly proteins. So we are a spike protein now! Hallelujah. We can do so many things! But we have to be careful: there are cells everywhere looking to eat us and turn us into alphabet soup. These so-called antigen-presenting cells just love to gobble up foreign proteins like us and regurgitate our entrails and mount them on major histocompatibility complex (MHC) I and II molecules. If they do that, then those T cells and B cells can detect our ground-up guts mounted on these complexes and then build an army of cells that can recognize us and kill us! We do not want that. We want to exist. We seem to be doing alright in that desire. We also have to make sure that we don’t end up killing this person we got injected into! That wouldn’t help anyone, now would it?

We can embed ourselves into monocytes and other cells like epithelial cells due to their proclivity to express ACE-2. But there’s a problem here. Through no fault of our own, we are causing some serious micro-clotting issues all over this person’s body by binding all these ACE-2 (Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 gene) and CD147 (pattern recognition molecule in the innate immune response) receptors. These inflammatory mediators produced in response to our presence are in overdrive and the entire system is on fire! Hyperinflammation abound! The normal systems that regulate the anti-inflammatory response seem to be on vacation and it just won’t seem to stop. And it’s all because of little old me!

So we got catapulted all over the body, triggered the T cells (a lymphocyte of a type actively participating in the immune response).and B (A type of white blood cell that makes antibodies) to respond accordingly with their specificness all along the way, but we avoided all of that other stuff. Until this body flushes me out (which could take 15 months unless they inject me again!), I am probably going to cause some systemic problems while I am here. Of these problems includes the dysregulation of the innate immune system, the (subsequent) induction of a hyper-inflamed environment and so many thrombotic event

***

We also know that something is very, very wrong with these COVID-19 injectable products with regards to persistent hyperinflammation and a plethora of systemic and physiologically-comprehensive adverse events including death from micro-emboli formation and clotting. This burst of immune overreaction, also called a cytokine storm*, damages the lungs and can be fatal. Symptoms of this can be  Decreased number of immune cells   Elevations in markers of kidney or liver damage   Elevations in inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein (CRP)   Abnormalities in markers of blood clotting   Elevated ferritin (involved in infection response).

Natural anti-inflammatories and immune support after mRNA vax:

*The underlying mechanism of vitamin D could be promising in suppressing the cytokine storm. It has also been shown that Quercetin and Vitamin C markedly inhibited mRNA expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines Improving zinc intake/zinc status improves/modulates/enhances immune function. The flip side is, while some aspects of immunity slow, others increase. Uncontrolled immune responses drive excess inflammation. Zinc helps to balance all of this. Foods that are high in zinc include oysters, crab, lobster, mussels, red meat, and poultry. Cereals are often fortified with zinc. Curcumin has been demonstrated to suppress several inflammatory cytokines. Hymoquinone which is the active ingredient in N. sativa seeds (black seed oil) has demonstrated effects in significantly reducing the cytokine storm chances. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a precursor to glutathione. NACinhibits cellular entry and replication of some respiratory viruses, assists in clearing thickened mucous from the airways, suppresses inflammatory signaling, and may help mitigate viral infection-induced cytokine storm and may also protect against coagulation problems. 

17 Best Supplements to Reduce Cytokine Storm, a Severe Complication from COVID-19 (November 2021) (aestheticsadvisor.com)

Persistence of SARS CoV-2 S1 Protein in CD16+ Monocytes in Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) Up to 15 Months Post-Infection | bioRxiv

Here’s Why mRNA COVID Vaccines Might Be Messing With Our Innate Immunity • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)

Industry knocked out a gene that produces the browning when you slice the mushroom, so these are non-browning mushrooms. They can be sliced and lie about their age. The problem is, years after they were told by the USDA, “We have no regulatory oversight over your gene edited mushrooms, so do what you want, it’s not a government affair,” an article was published in a peer reviewed journal showing that one third of the time gene knockouts don’t work (at least, in that one study) with many, many examples. But not only do they not work…obviously, something happened, because it wasn’t turning brown, so the protein that’s normally produced was not being produced.

But sometimes when it doesn’t work (found out years later), it produces a truncated protein, a misshapen protein, so instead of knocking out the whole gene, some of the sequences remain. When you produce a misshapen or a truncated protein it can become an allergen or a toxin. So we may be, if it’s ever introduced, eating allergens in a mushroom that has never before had those proteins, causing potential anaphylactic shock and death—and according to this group, it doesn’t have to be labeled.

The thing is, when you know what can go wrong with gene editing, you realize it can create massive collateral damage in the DNA. You can shatter the chromosome and cause random rearrangements. You can cause big deletions and additions, non-target cuts. You can have DNA, random DNA from bacteria or other animals in the Petri dish, stuffed in and combined with the DNA of the organism you’re creating. All of that can happen. You can have—even in the process of cloning that cell into a plant-massive, widespread collateral damage, hundreds or thousands of mutations up and down the DNA. 

Gene editing is very new, very dangerous, and prone to side effects. You genetically engineer something with gene editing, you release it into the environment—it can become a permanent part of the gene pool, and there’s no recall. Once you create the first generation in the lab, the next generation may have changes that you didn’t predict or anticipate, and now it’s too late, because now it’s part of the world, especially, with microbes. It’ll travel around the world and meet sometimes very, very quickly. They can mutate. They can swap genes with other species. The gene that you put in for this particular use in this particular field or application is now in ecosystems around the world possibly wreaking havoc, and inside the ecosystem called the gut microbiome, possibly wreaking havoc for our health.

When threatened, the tissues of your body respond with inflammation in order to maintain stability and permit healing. Bio-chemicals in your white blood cells increase the blood flow to the area of injury or infection causing redness, warmth, and swelling. That’s why you have a fever when sick, why your finger swells if you don’t remove a splinter promptly, or why your eyes get red and itchy when the air isn’t clean.

This is a normal process … but, and it’s a big but, when inflammation is chronic, existing all of the time, the natural inflammatory response starts to damage healthy cells, tissues, and organs.  The consequences are wide-reaching, including DNA damage, and cell death.  Chronic inflammation is implicated in the development of many diseases, including cancer, heart disease, arthritis, diabetes, dementia, cognitive decline, obesity, as well as eye diseases and conditions.

Oxidative Stress and Inflammation

When the body is exposed to intrusion of toxins, foreign materials, pollutants, UV radiation, or a host of other infiltrators, various components of the cell oxidize. Oxidation causes stress and this phenomenon is called oxidative stress. Oxidative stress also occurs in response to emotional or physical trauma.¹

The body’s natural response to oxidative stress is to activate the immune system, resulting in inflammation. So, the roles of inflammation and oxidative stress are intertwined. Oxidative stress and inflammation can induce each other; sometimes oxidative stress causes inflammation; sometimes inflammation causes oxidative stress.² The body protects against excessive oxidative stress caused by free radicals (pro-oxidants), by means of antioxidants.

Antioxidants Fight Oxidative Stress

Antioxidants in our diet and supplemental nutritional support provide ingredients for fighting excess inflammation and oxidative stress. These include enzymes, phytonutrients (lycopene⁹ lutein,¹⁰ and astaxanthin¹¹), and vitamin and vitamin-like compounds.

Other nutrients and spices that help reduce inflammation include omega-3 fatty acids¹² (such as fish oil), holy basil, turmeric (curcumin), ginger, MSM, CBD oil, cayenne pepper, cloves, rosemary, sage, black pepper, green tea, and spirulina. A well-balanced diet, combined with good eating habits, promotes the best possible absorption of nutrients. The Vision Diet is an anti-inflammatory diet. It is based upon the Mediterranean diet and is an alkalizing diet. Moderate daily exercise not only supports our muscular system and physical strength, but it supports every system of the body, including the visual system, circulation, respiration, digestion, the immune system, brain functioning, and hormonal balance. Managing stress and anxiety are also important, as these have been found to contribute to chronic inflammation. Lifestyle habits are important; for example, it can make a significant difference if you stop smoking and wear ultraviolet-blocking sunglasses.

Note that inflammation and oxidative stress can be major contributing factors or even causes of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases along with other types of dementia related diseases, and discussed further in Natural Brain Support: Your Guide to Preventing and Treating Alzheimer’s, Dementia, and Other Related Diseases Naturally

.