Splenda Contaminates 65% Of Breastmilk Sampled, Gov. Study Finds

A concerning study finds that most of the breast milk samples tested contained artificial sweeteners. Why has this never been discovered until now and what are the implications to our most vulnerable populations? 

An article soon to be published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health on the presence of synthetic sweeteners in breast milk is bound to upset the apple cart when it comes to assessing the toxicological risk of these chemicals to breastfed infants.

In previous articles we have reported extensively on the dangers of artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame and sucralose (aka Splenda), whose presence in tens of thousands of consumer products make exposure to them commonplace.  Despite their present day low-risk regulatory status, we have found highly concerning research that these compounds contribute to a wide range of health conditions such as:

• Brain Damage


• Obesity and Diabetes


• Weight Gain/Overweight


• Addiction

Even more concerning, when Splenda is heated at temperatures that occur in baking applications it produces dioxin, one of the most deadly chemicals known to man. This is a finding that has received almost not attention outside a few scientific studies that we reported on in an article you can familiarize yourself with here: Sucralose’s (Splenda) Harms Vastly Underestimated: Baking Releases Dioxin.

The new study titled, “Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk“, was conducted by researchers from the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda , Maryland , USA. The study abstract is available to read ahead of the study’s full publication later this month:

Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk.

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2015 Aug 12:1-4. [Epub ahead of print]

Sylvetsky AC¹, Gardner AL, Bauman V, Blau JE, Martin Garraffo H, Walter PJ, Rother KI.

Abstract

Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS), including saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, and acesulfame-potassium, are commonly consumed in the general population, and all except for saccharin are considered safe for use during pregnancy and lactation. Sucralose (Splenda) currently holds the majority of the NNS market share and is often combined with acesulfame-potassium in a wide variety of foods and beverages. To date, saccharin is the only NNS reported to be found in human breast milk after maternal consumption, while there is no apparent information on the other NNS. Breast milk samples were collected from 20 lactating volunteers, irrespective of their habitual NNS intake. Saccharin, sucralose, and acesulfame-potassium were present in 65% of participants’ milk samples, whereas aspartame was not detected. These data indicate that NNS are frequently ingested by nursing infants, and thus prospective clinical studies are necessary to determine whether early NNS exposure via breast milk may have clinical implications.

This groundbreaking study has found for the first time that sucralose and acesulfame-potassium survive maternal metabolism and enter into breast milk in the majority of the breast milk samples tested (65%).  As is the case for many chemicals released into the human food supply, adequate proof of the safety of these compounds in infants is not only not available, but unethical to perform in human subjects. This is one justification for the use of surrogate risk assessments using animals, such as the animal LD50 model, whereby a chemical is tested by determining the amount needed to kill 50% of rodents within a relatively short time frame (so-called “acute toxicity”), and then deducing from that data an “acceptable level of harm” to humans primarily by adjusting for body weight differences between rodents and humans. This system, of course, is extremely primitive, and does not account for low-dose, chronic exposures; nor does it account for the synergistic toxicities of multiple exposures occurring simultaneously in real-world situations, such as the study above.

Clearly, if these artificial sweeteners are being passed directly to newborns through breast milk, and there is no assurance of their safety, an immediate halt to their use by those wishing to conceive, are pregnant, or breastfeeding should be initiated by regulators. Anything less than obeisance to the precautionary principle could be considered a violation of informed consent, and evidence o culpability shared by manufacturers and regulators to for the harm done to exposed populations.

This new study will represent something of a litmus test as far as determining how effectively the media will keep this information buried or will report accurately on it once it is released. Given the high gravitas government source of the research, and the profound implications it has to the health of our most susceptible population: newborns and infants, if it goes un- or under-reported it is our job to make sure it gets widespread exposure. Therefore please share this information and relevant links above with relevant parties and stakeholders who should be aware of the true dangers associated with the use of artificial sweeteners.

The post Splenda Contaminates 65% Of Breastmilk Sampled, Gov. Study Finds appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To “Improve” Vaccination?

Over the course of the past few years we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse, unintended health effects of vaccination, in an attempt to offset the one-sided propaganda foisted upon the public, namely, that all vaccines are unequivocally “safe” and “effective” a priori.

Along the way, we happened upon a 2010 study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases which has been shared more than any other article on our database, and which suggests that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from deactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and “vaccine potency.” The concluded the study with the following statement:

“INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.”

It is not difficult to comprehend what caused the flurry of interest in this study. Readers were obviously disturbed by the suggestion that women in the underdeveloped world temporarily stop breast feeding (often the only source of infant nutrition) in order to increase the vaccine’s purported “efficacy.”  Are we to assume that these breast milk deprived infants should consume formula in the interim, a synthetic ‘breastmilk alternative’ that has been linked to over 60 serious health conditions, as well as increased infant mortality?  And to what end? So that the vaccine can generate a temporary spike in antibody production, which is no measure of real-world effectiveness? [See: Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines]

First, it should be made clear that the term “efficacy,” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody-elevating effects, does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether or not a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the infectious agent of concern.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is primarily a highly successful business enterprise dependent on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by “health experts,” and the manufacturers who produce, them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be overestimated or understated.

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a bee hive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the “efficacy” (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern, can not be guaranteed; nor must the vaccine researchers prove antibody-antigen affinity to receive FDA approval.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating “false flag” responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A, so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection – and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus. Truth be told, there is actually a shocking lack of evidence to support flu vaccines, in any age or population.

What’s worse, the vaccine response can “blow back” causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (auto-immunity).  In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and this “front door” can be left wide open to unmet infectious challenges.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not.  One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the developing infant by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of “natural” antigenic challenges for the infant, this breast milk derived, indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the “enemy,” the reduction in antibodies that accompanies a well-nourished breastfed infant’s blood work, after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine, is a sign of health, not disease.

This study struck a deep psychic chord out there. Images of phallic syringes stabbing away jealously at the symbolic breast of Nature come to mind, as the increasingly invasive ethos of modern medicine — always attempting to “improve on Nature” — drives us sick, mentally and physically. Can’t we just leave the timeless wisdom of mothering and nourishing that is woven into the mother-infant dyad alone?

© April 24, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To “Improve” Vaccination?

Over the course of the past few years we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse, unintended health effects of vaccination, in an attempt to offset the one-sided propaganda foisted upon the public, namely, that all vaccines are unequivocally “safe” and “effective” a priori.

Along the way, we happened upon a 2010 study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases which has been shared more than any other article on our database, and which suggests that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from deactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and “vaccine potency.” The concluded the study with the following statement:

“INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.”

It is not difficult to comprehend what caused the flurry of interest in this study. Readers were obviously disturbed by the suggestion that women in the underdeveloped world temporarily stop breast feeding (often the only source of infant nutrition) in order to increase the vaccine’s purported “efficacy.”  Are we to assume that these breast milk deprived infants should consume formula in the interim, a synthetic ‘breastmilk alternative’ that has been linked to over 60 serious health conditions, as well as increased infant mortality?  And to what end? So that the vaccine can generate a temporary spike in antibody production, which is no measure of real-world effectiveness? [See: Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines]

First, it should be made clear that the term “efficacy,” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody-elevating effects, does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether or not a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the infectious agent of concern.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is primarily a highly successful business enterprise dependent on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by “health experts,” and the manufacturers who produce, them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be overestimated or understated.

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a bee hive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the “efficacy” (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern, can not be guaranteed; nor must the vaccine researchers prove antibody-antigen affinity to receive FDA approval.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating “false flag” responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A, so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection – and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus. Truth be told, there is actually a shocking lack of evidence to support flu vaccines, in any age or population.

What’s worse, the vaccine response can “blow back” causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (auto-immunity).  In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and this “front door” can be left wide open to unmet infectious challenges.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not.  One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the developing infant by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of “natural” antigenic challenges for the infant, this breast milk derived, indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the “enemy,” the reduction in antibodies that accompanies a well-nourished breastfed infant’s blood work, after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine, is a sign of health, not disease.

This study struck a deep psychic chord out there. Images of phallic syringes stabbing away jealously at the symbolic breast of Nature come to mind, as the increasingly invasive ethos of modern medicine — always attempting to “improve on Nature” — drives us sick, mentally and physically. Can’t we just leave the timeless wisdom of mothering and nourishing that is woven into the mother-infant dyad alone?

© April 24, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.