CommonPass

A digital “health passport” framework initiated by The Commons Project, the World Economic Forum and The Rockefeller Foundation, which during the first week of July 2020 convened more than 350 leaders from the public and private sectors in 52 countries to design a common framework “for safe border reopening” around the world. The proposed framework involves the following:

  1. Every nation must publish their health screening criteria for entry into the country using a standard format on a common framework
  2. Each country must register trusted facilities that conduct COVID-19 lab testing for foreign travel and administer vaccines listed in the CommonPass registry
  3. Each country will accept health screening status from foreign visitors through apps and services built on the CommonPass framework
  4. Patient identification is to be collected at the time of sample collection and/or vaccination using an international standard
  5. The CommonPass framework will be integrated into flight and hotel reservation and check-in processes

Eventually, the CommonPass framework will be integrated with already existing personal health apps such as Apple Health and CommonHealth. If you want to travel, your personal health record will be evaluated and compared to a country’s entry requirements, and if you don’t meet them, you’ll be directed to an approved testing and vaccination location.

A screen grab from the video illustrates the general idea of how this will all work. When you get your test result or vaccine, that data is uploaded to an app on your cellphone. The app generates a barcode that is then scanned at the airport, at hotel check-in and wherever else vaccine status verification is deemed necessary.

That the Rockefeller Foundation is one of the three founders of CommonPass should surprise no one, considering they basically laid the groundwork for it in their April 21, 2020, white paper2 “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan — Strategic Steps to Reopen Our Workplaces and Our Communities.”

That white paper laid out a strategic framework that is clearly intended to become part of a permanent surveillance and social control structure that severely limits personal liberty and freedom of choice.

It also warns that elimination of privacy will be required, stating that “Some privacy concerns must be set aside for an infectious agent as virulent as COVID-19 …” The tracking system proposed by The Rockefeller Foundation also demands access to other medical data, which tells us the system will have any number of other uses besides tracking COVID-19 cases.

Worldwide Tracking Begins

This digital clearance system is currently being tested by United Airlines3 on flights between London and Newark, and Cathay Pacific on flights between Hong Kong and Singapore.4 As reported by Tott News, November 15, 2020:5

“Volunteer travelers landing at Newark Liberty International Airport on United Airlines Flight 15 from London Heathrow used the CommonPass health pass on their mobile phone to document their COVID-19 status and share it with airline staff upon disembarking.

Continue Reading at Mercola.com…

See also:

mRNA Vaccines

Many of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being fast-tracked are not conventional vaccines. Their design is aimed at manipulating your very biology, and therefore have the potential to alter the biology of the entire human race. The science behind conventional vaccines is to train your body to recognize and respond to the proteins of a particular virus by injecting a small amount of the actual viral protein into your body, thereby triggering an immune response and the development of antibodies.

This is not what happens with an mRNA vaccine. The theory behind these vaccines is that when you inject the mRNA into your cells, it will stimulate your cells to manufacture their own viral protein. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine will be the first of its kind. No mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed before. And, to add insult to injury, they’re forgoing all animal safety testing.

Dr. Carrie Madej reviews some of the background of certain individuals participating in the race for a COVID-19 vaccine, which include Moderna co-founder Derrick Rossi, a Harvard researcher who successfully reprogrammed stem cells using modified RNA, thus changing the function of the stem cells. Moderna was founded on this concept of being able to modify human biological function through genetic engineering, Madej says.

As mentioned, the mRNA vaccines are designed to instruct your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the glycoprotein that attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell. This is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells.

The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will mount a response to it and begin producing antibodies to the virus. However, as reported by The Vaccine Reaction, researchers have pointed out potential weaknesses:

According to researchers at University of Pennsylvania and Duke University, mRNA vaccines have potential safety issues, including local and systemic inflammation and stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and autoimmunity, as well as development of edema (swelling) and blood clots.

Systemic inflammation, auto-reactive antibodies and autoimmune problems are not insignificant concerns. In fact, these are in large part why previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have ALL failed.

Over the past 20 years, coronavirus vaccine research has been plagued by one consistent adverse outcome in particular, namely paradoxical immune enhancement. This is caused by the fact that coronaviruses produce two different types of antibodies—neutralizing antibodies5 that fight the infection, and binding antibodies6 (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection.

Incapable of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies can instead trigger paradoxical immune enhancement. What that means is that it looks good until you get the disease, and then it makes the disease far worse than it would have been otherwise. As detailed in my interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in one coronavirus vaccine trial using ferrets, all the vaccinated animals died when exposed to the actual virus.

According to Madej, animal studies have also found the type of mRNA technology introduced with this vaccine can increase the risk of cancer and mutagenesis (gene mutations).

What You Need to Know About the Delivery System

Madej goes on to discuss how this mRNA vaccine is going to be administered. Rather than a conventional injection, the vaccine will be administered using a microneedle platform. Not only can it be mass produced quickly, but it can also be administered by anyone. It’s as simple at attaching an adhesive bandage to your arm.

The adhesive side of the bandage has rows of tiny microneedles and a hydrogel base that contains luciferase enzyme and the vaccine itself. Because of their tiny size, the microneedles are said to be nearly painless when pressed into the skin.

The idea is that the microneedles will puncture the skin, delivering the modified synthetic RNA into the nucleus of your cells. RNA is essentially coding material that your body uses. In this case, as mentioned, the instructions are to produce the SARS-CoV-2 viral protein.

The problem with all of this, Madej notes, is that they’re using a process called transfection — a process used to create genetically modified organisms. She points out that research has confirmed GMO foods are not as healthy as conventional unmodified foods. The question is, might we also become less healthy? “Vaccine manufacturers have stated that this will not alter our DNA, our genome,” Madej says.

I say that is not true. Because if we use this process to make a genetically modified organism, why would it not do the same thing to a human? I don’t know why they’re saying that.

If you look at the definition of transfection, it will tell you that it can be a temporary change in the cell. And I think that is what the vaccine manufacturers are banking on.

Or, it’s a possibility for it to become stable, to be taken up into the genome, and to be so stable that it will start replicating when the genome replicates. Meaning it is now a permanent part of your genome. That’s a chance that we’re taking. It could be temporary, or it could be permanent.

Patentable DNA, Luciferase and Nanotechnology

Naturally, we won’t find out the truth about whether the vaccine causes a temporary or permanent change for many years after the experimental vaccine is introduced, and that’s an important piece of information.

Why? Because synthetic genes can be patented. So, if inserting a synthetic RNA ends up creating permanent changes in the genome, humans will contain patentable genes. What will that mean for us, seeing how patents have owners, and owners have patent rights?

Another part of the delivery system that raises its own set of questions is the use of the enzyme luciferase, which has bioluminescent qualities. While invisible under normal conditions, using a cellphone app or special device, you will be able to see a glowing vaccination mark.

As described in the journal RSC Advances7 in 2015, luciferase gene-loaded quantum dots “can efficiently deliver genes into cells.” The abstract discusses their use as “self-illuminating probes for hepatoma imaging,” but the fact that quantum dots can deliver genetic material is interesting in itself.

The hydrogel, meanwhile, is a DARPA invention that involves nanotechnology and nanobots. This “bioelectronic interface” is part of how the vaccination mark will be able to connect to your smartphone, Madej says, providing information about blood sugar, heart rate and any number of other biological data.

“It has the potential to see almost anything that goes on in your body,” Madej says. This will have immediate ramifications for our privacy, yet no one has yet addressed where this information will be going. Who will collect and have access to all this data? Who will be responsible for protecting it? How will it be used?

Also, if your cellphone can receive information from your body, what information can your body receive from it, or other sources? Could transmissions affect our mood? Our behavior? Our physical function? Our thoughts or memories?

Stepping Into Transhumanist Territory

In his Forbes article, Sahota quotes Kurzweil’s book “The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology,” in which Kurzweil states:

The Singularity will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots.

If Madej turns out to be correct, and the mRNA vaccine ushers in the ability to alter not only our genes but also opens the door for nanotechnology-driven interfacing between our bodies and programmable technology, aren’t we in fact stepping over the line into transhuman territory?

The Truthstream Media video above discusses the larger issues of transhumanism and the race to merge man with machine and artificial intelligence. There are even ongoing attempts to upload the human mind into the cloud, ultimately creating a form of “digital hive mind” where everyone communicates via “Wi-Fi telepathy.” This, despite the fact we still do not fully understand what “the mind” actually is, or where it’s located.

Neuralink—A Psychiatric Disaster in the Making?

Another transhumanist that has recently brought us to a brand-new precipice is Elon Musk, with his latest venture, Neuralink, described in the video presentation given in late August, above. Neuralink is a transcranial implant that uses direct current stimulation. For now, the device is aimed at helping people with brain or spinal injuries.

Ultimately, the goal is to merge the human brain with computers. I have strong reservations about this. There’s tremendous room for unintended psychological and psychiatric consequences. In an interview that I did with psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin that has not yet been published, he discussed his concerns with this technology, saying:

What’s interesting to me is that while Musk is so brilliant, he’s stupid about the brain. That’s probably because the neurosurgeons and psychiatrists he consults are stupid about the brain. I mean they’re just stupid.

He wants to put in multiple threadlike electrodes into the brain, into webs of neurons, and put in low voltage stimulation. This is insane. The brain can’t tolerate this. He hopes to [be able to] communicate but there’s not going to be any communication.

The brain isn’t going to talk to these electrodes. That’s not how the brain works. The brain talks to itself. It’s not going to talk to Elon Musk [or anyone else] and he’s going to disrupt the brain talking to itself. It’s a terrible thing to do.

I wish somebody who knows Elon Musk would say, ‘You ought to talk to Peter Breggin. He says your consultants are stupid.’ He’s already planning to try to get FDA approval for some neurological disorders and that’ll be the beginning of the onslaught.

Is Transhumanism Inevitable?

Getting back to the mRNA vaccines, time will tell just how hazardous they end up being. Clearly, if the changes end up being permanent, the chance of long-term side effects is much greater than if they end up being temporary.

In a worst-case scenario, whatever changes occur could even be generational. The problem is these issues won’t be readily apparent any time soon. In my view, this vaccine could easily turn into a global catastrophe the likes of which we’ve never experienced before.

We really should not be quick to dismiss the idea that these vaccines may cause permanent genetic changes, because we now have proof that even conventional vaccines have the ability to do that, and they don’t involve the insertion of synthetic RNA.

Fast-Tracked Swine Flu Vaccine Caused Genetic Alterations

After the H1N1 swine flu of 2009, the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (a fast-tracked vaccine used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked to childhood narcolepsy, which abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.

Children and teens in Finland, the U.K. and Sweden were among the hardest hit. Further analyses discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine as well, although the link wasn’t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.

A 2019 study reported finding a “novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1”—a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF, a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival.

They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype, suggesting “variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.”

In addition to that, there’s the research showing that the H1N1 swine flu vaccine was one of five inactivated vaccines that increased overall mortality, especially among girls. A swine flu article I wrote 11 years ago, in 2009, turned out to have a rather prophetic warning at the end:

The swine flu vaccine has not been tested for safety or efficacy, but we DO know it will contain harmful additives. The choice, to me, is obvious. And in the future, anytime a new ‘pandemic’ appears and officials urge you to rush out and get a shot, please remember this article and ask yourself if it’s really you who stands to benefit from their advice.

The Swine Flu Fraud of 1976

We can also learn from the swine flu fiasco of 1976, detailed in this 1979 60 Minutes episode. Fearing a repeat of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, “the government propaganda machine cranked into action,” 60 Minutes says, telling all Americans to get vaccinated.

According to 60 Minutes, 46 million Americans were vaccinated against the swine flu at that time. Over the next few years, thousands of Americans filed vaccine damage claims with the federal government. As reported by Smithsonian Magazine in 2017:

In the spring of 1976, it looked like that year’s flu was the real thing. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t, and rushed response led to a medical debacle that hasn’t gone away.

“Some of the American public’s hesitance to embrace vaccines—the flu vaccine in particular—can be attributed to the long-lasting effects of a failed 1976 campaign to mass-vaccinate the public against a strain of the swine flu virus,’ writes Rebecca Kreston for Discover.

This government-led campaign was widely viewed as a debacle and put an irreparable dent in future public health initiative, as well as negatively influenced the public’s perception of both the flu and the flu shot in this country.

A 1981 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office to Sen. John Durkin, D-N.H., reads, in part:

Before the swine flu program there were comparatively few vaccine-related claims made against the Government. Since 1963, Public Health Service records showed that only 27 non-swine flu claims were filed.

However, as of December 31, 1979, we found that 3,839 claims and 988 lawsuits had been filed against the Government alleging injury, death, or other damage resulting from the 45 million swine flu immunizations given under the program.

A Justice official told us that as of October 2, 1980, 3,965 claims and 1,384 lawsuits had been filed. Of the 3,965 claims filed, the Justice official said 316 claims had been settled for about $12.3 million …

The devastating side effects of the Pandemrix vaccine should be instructive. No one anticipated a flu vaccine to have genetic consequences, yet it did. Now they’re proposing injecting mRNA to make every single cell in your body produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

It seems outright foolish not to assume there will be significant consequences.

Source: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/09/will-new-covid-vaccine-make-you-transhuman/ with references)

GMO Patented Humans

The so-called “COVID” vaccines deploy recombinant DNA/RNA technology that “rewrites” the genetic code much as Monsanto, for example, rewrites the genetic code of numerous seeds (including tomatoes, corn, etc) not to mention the application of genetic bio-technology to animals: “Biotechnology can be classified as the cloning of animals with identical genetic composition or genetic engineering (via recombinant DNA technology and gene editing) to produce genetically modified animals or microorganisms. Cloning helps to conserve species and breeds, particularly those with excellent biological and economical traits. Recombinant DNA technology combines genetic materials from multiple sources into single cells to generate proteins. (Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology)

Genetically-modified organisms can be patented and owned. Monsanto owns the GMO seeds. Human Genes are not patentable. They’ve tried! It went all of the way to the Supreme Court. Once DNA vaccines are used on humans — and it has never been done before — humans could possibly be “owned”. We could in theory be “patented”. None of this has been discussed at length, and very little about this is known publicly. No randomized placebo-controlled trials have been conducted. Vaccine manufacturers are exempt from these and many other safeguards.

In 2010, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) admitted that this type of technology can be used to “enhance and subvert” humans at a genetic level. Hydrogel nanotechnology is injected beneath the skin. It can interface with cell phones and Artificial Intelligence to monitor basically everything within the body, including anxieties, emotions, ovulations, vitamins etc. etc. Once implanted, the technology spreads throughout the body. Scientists do not know how this affects our DNA.

Recombinant RNA and synthetic DNA technology will, argues Dr. Madej, cause permanent and unknown genetic changes in a person’s body.

Will it create a new species and destroy an old one?

West Nile Virus

(WNV) arrived in New York City in 1999 and soon grew into an “epidemic” characterized by a sea of contradictions.54 Medical press agencies proclaimed the “first arrival of the West Nile virus to the Western Hemisphere”55 but a more accurate description of the situation would be the “first testing of the West Nile virus in the Western Hemisphere.” Mayor Giuliani personally announced the epidemic. He also announced the immediate commencement of a six-week pesticide spray campaign over the city, dispensed by helicopters. Meanwhile, the TV and newspaper headlines chanted, “The Deadly Virus.” The disease was at first attributed to the St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLE) but a few weeks later blame shifted to West Nile virus. The aerial pesticide spraying occurred in dozens of cities.

The United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) issued a press release one year later “confirming” the pathological effect of WNV on crows. This was hyped and widely distributed. Having read many other virological studies, I found the USGS results incredibly odd. The crows were injected intramuscularly with a virus extract and a few days later all met death. The filter used to separate the virus from tissue extract was nearly six times the diameter of the virus.56 Nearly all non-injected crows in the same cage also died. The success of the experiment was too convincing to be true, especially for a study that did not employ the common, harsh, intracranial injection method. The study outcome was also odd because WNV had been considered a mild virus and not especially dangerous to birds. The USGS laboratory ignored my repeated inquiries for the published details. After going through another scientist, who contacted the USGS, I received an emailed response from the USGS indicating low confidence for their study. The agency indicated their study would not be published or discussed and they expressed an intention to perform a better experiment in the future.

SLE and WNV epidemics occur annually in air-polluted petrochemical regions (such as eastern New Jersey and St. Louis) during the warm spring and summer months, with an apex in July and August. The incidence correlates daily with air pollution brought to ground level by warm air and loss of convection efficiency for exhaust sources.  SLE epidemics have a long history in the US (in petrochemical regions) and these epidemics don’t spread infectiously to other regions. The two great epicenters for WNV/SLE disease are the two great petrochemical industrial regions in the US–southern Louisiana and New Jersey.

During the summers of 1999 and 2000, air pollution levels reached record levels, correlating with the incidence of “West Nile virus” cases, both human and avian. The gasoline additive MTBE represents perhaps the greatest production volume for any industrial poison in the US, yet it has received little publicity. The public became aware of its dangers only when the EPA suggested that MTBE be phased out on July 27, 1999. That date also represents the apex of the West Nile virus avian epidemic for 1999.63

Like so many widely dispensed industrial poisons, the physiological effects of MTBE have only become known through usage on the public. However, Dr. Peter Joseph correlated MTBE with neurological disease in his 1997 study, “Changes in Disease Rates Following the Introduction of Oxygenated Fuels.” Neurological symptoms also characterize West Nile virus disease. Avian mortality further distinguishes this “viral” disease. Yet, avian mortality is an early warning system for human air pollution disease, as evidenced by the traditional air assay test, the “miners’ canary.”

HERE ARE THE FACTS ON THE WEST NILE VIRUS FACTS:

  1. There is no such thing as a WEST NILE VIRUS. It has never been demonstrated to exist.
  2. The bird experts at the Audubon society examined thousands of birds and concluded that they were dying of pesticides.
  3. There is a big difference between a parasitic “infection” and what is called a viral “infection” – there is no such thing as a viral “infection”. A virus is a piece of dead meat. A cell fragment. Anything containing DNA or RNA can only be sourced from a living cell. The term “live virus” is an oxymoron. No virus has life. No virus can reproduce itself. The two basic requirements of life is metabolism and reproduction. The virus possesses neither. Most life on earth is a single cell, non nucleated bacteria that possess the basic requirements for life, metabolism and reproduction. To Quote my good friend, James Pershing Isaacs, MD, author of Complementarity in Biology – Quantization of Molecular Motion. John Hopkins Press 1969, “Viruses and rickettsia do not seem to be free-living bions….Viruses may be about the size of bions, but possess no plasma membrane. Even for replication ability, they depend upon the environment of cellular hosts or artificially supported metabolism. Viruses are analagous to subatomic particles, and rickettsiae to chemical free radicles trapped in a matrix. We suggest that viruses may be considered as sub-bionic particles and ricketsiae as “parasitic” bions, entrapped in cells.”

High Fructose Corn Syrup

A sweetener derived from cornstarch. Cornstarch is composed of a chain of glucose (simple sugar) molecules joined together. Corn syrup, which is basically 100 percent glucose, comes from the breakdown of cornstarch into individual glucose molecules. In order to create high fructose corn syrup, enzymes must be added to corn syrup to change some of the glucose into another simple sugar called fructose. The enzymes, alpha-amylase and glucoamylase, used in HFCS processing have been genetically modified to improve their heat stability for the production of HFCS. (3)

According to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, most high fructose corn syrups contain either 42 percent or 55 percent fructose. (4) The rest of the HFCS is glucose and water. HFCS 42 is typically what’s used in cereals, processed foods, baked goods and some beverages. HFCS 55 is used mainly in soft drinks. However, some HFCS contains up to 90 percent fructose. (5)

High fructose corn syrup is also called glucose-fructose, isoglucose and glucose-fructose syrup. Some people, especially the companies producing and using HFCS, like to say that it’s no different from regular sugar. But that’s just not true. HFCS contains more fructose than table sugar, which is a dangerous difference.

Author Bill Sanda reports that in 1980, the average American ingested 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. By 1994, it was up to 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose. Today, approximately 25 percent of our caloric intake comes from sugars, the larger portion being fructose. (6)

There are so many reasons why high fructose corn syrup should be banned from our food supply. Here are some of the most highly disturbing high fructose corn syrup facts:

  • Americans consume an average of 50 grams of HFCS every day. (7)
  • HFCS now represents more than 40 percent of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the U.S. (8)
  • HFCS has been shown to increase the risk of developing high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease.
  • Consumption of HFCS increased more than 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the intake changes of any other food or food group, and is a main factor in our current obesity epidemic.
  • HFCS can cause leaky gut syndrome.
  • HFCS contains up to 570 micrograms of health-hazardous mercury per gram.
  • HFCS has been shown to promote cancer.
  • The average 20-ounce soda contains 15 teaspoons of sugar, all of it high fructose corn syrup.

Dangers

1. Weight Gain

There is a lot of debate over high fructose corn syrup vs. sugar. Many HFSC supporters want to stay that both are equally bad, but all sweeteners are not created equal when it comes to putting on unwanted pounds. A Princeton University study found that HFCS causes more weight gain than refined sugar does.

Specifically, animal subjects with access to high fructose corn syrup put on significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when overall caloric intake was equal. Furthermore, long-term consumption of high fructose corn syrup was also shown to lead to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdominal region, as well as an increase in triglyceride levels. According to researchers, this study provides insight into factors contributing to the rise of obesity in America. (9)

2. Cancer

With high fructose corn syrup found in so many foods and beverages, it’s no surprise that fructose intake has increased dramatically in recent decades. Research from 2010 published by the American Association for Cancer Research found that the fructose in HFCS promotes cancer growth, specifically pancreatic cancer.

This study actually found that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose and induce rapid reproduction of pancreatic cancer cells. Researchers also found that fructose and glucose metabolism are very different, with fructose causing more negative health reactions than glucose.

This research provides very good reason why cancer patients should not be given anything containing high fructose corn syrup and how avoiding HFCS can possibly disrupt cancer growth. (10) When it comes to cancer prevention and treatment, clearly HFCS is an ingredient that should be aggressively avoided.

3. Fatty Liver and Liver Stress

Fructose is known to stimulate fat accumulation in the liver by increasing fat synthesis yet blocking fat breakdown. In order to chemically create high fructose corn syrup, glucose and fructose, which are naturally linked together, become separated. When HFCS enters your bloodstream, the freed-up fructose travels directly into your liver and overwhelms your liver’s processing capacity.

This then causes unhealthy fat production in your liver called lipogenesis. This can lead to fatty liver disease if more than 5 percent to 10 percent of the liver’s weight becomes fat. It doesn’t stop there, though. Having a fatty liver can lead to serious liver stress, liver damage, obesity, prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. (11)

One of several animal studies shows that excessive fructose consumption is associated with dyslipidemia and increased fat deposits in the liver. Dyslipidemia, or having high blood levels of cholesterol, triglycerides or both, is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease. This study concludes that the findings support limitation of excessive fructose addition in beverages in order to counteract the current epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes in industrialized countries like the U.S. (12)

4. Increased Cholesterol Levels

Hight fructose corn syrup intake is linked to high cholesterol levels. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that only two weeks of moderate consumption of high fructose corn syrup caused triglycerides and cholesterol levels to rise.

The study split 85 people with generally healthy lipid profiles into four groups. The first three groups consumed drinks sweetened with either 25 percent, 17.5 percent or 10 percent high fructose corn syrup while the fourth group drank something sweetened only with aspartame.

While I would never promote aspartame consumption either, the results showed that LDL or “bad” cholesterol for the aspartame group remained the same before and after the diet. However, for subjects who consumed HFCS-sweetened beverages for two weeks, the results were as follows: The 10 percent group on average went to LDL of 102 from 95, the 17.5 percent to 102 from 93 and the 25 percent group to 107 from 91. (13)

The lead author of the study, Kimber L. Stanhope, a research scientist at the University of California, Davis said, “It was a surprise that adding as little as the equivalent of a half-can of soda at breakfast, lunch and dinner was enough to produce significant increases in risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Our bodies respond to a relatively small increase in sugar, and that’s important information.” (14)

5. Diabetes

A lot of medical professionals think that fructose is better for diabetics than sugar, but every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. Fructose, on the other hand, must be metabolized by the liver. Fructose has been directly linked with diabetes, especially high fructose corn syrup, which contains a great deal of free-floating fructose.

Unlike fruit, which contains fructose yet also has fiber and nutrients to positively affect fructose’s absorption by the body, high fructose corn syrup offers absolutely zero nutritional value. It’s just straight-up questionable sugar and calories, nothing else.

Recent data suggest that fructose consumption in humans leads to increased visceral fat accumulation, impairment in the regulation of fats in the blood (like cholesterol and triglycerides) and decreased insulin sensitivity. Why are these effects of fructose so concerning? All of these side effects have been associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes as well as cardiovascular disease. (15)

A study published in the journal Global Health shows that countries that mix high fructose corn syrup into processed foods and drinks have higher rates of diabetes than countries that don’t use HFCS. Out of the 43 countries studied, approximately half had little or no high fructose corn syrup in their food supplies. In the other countries, the HFCS content of foods was between about one pound a year per person in Germany to about 55 pounds each year per person in the U.S. The study found that countries using HFCS had diabetes rates about 20 percent higher than HFCS-free countries. (16)

6. High Blood Pressure

Fructose intake from added sugars is associated with high blood pressure levels in humans. The goal of a 2012 study published in Metabolism was to compare the effects of soft drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup vs. sucrose (table sugar).

In a randomized study, researchers had 40 men and women consume 24 ounces of either a HFCS- or sucrose-sweetened beverage. They then collected urine and blood samples over the next six hours to measure blood pressure, heart rate, fructose and several other metabolic biomarkers.

The researchers found that systolic blood pressure maximum levels were higher when HFCS-sweetened beverages were consumed compared to sucrose-sweetened beverages. Overall, they found that compared with sugar, high fructose corn syrup leads to greater fructose exposure to the entire body and significantly different acute metabolic effects. (17)

Research has shown that consuming 60 grams of fructose can increase systolic blood pressure in humans, but this is not seen in subjects given the same exact dose of glucose. In another study, overweight men were given 200 grams of fructose daily for two weeks, and it was observed that they maintained a significant rise in ambulatory blood pressure (blood pressure as you move around) during that time.

Hypertension in response to fructose intake appears to be brought about by increased sodium absorption in the intestine, inhibition of systemic blood vessel function and stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system. Fructose-induced increases in uric acid levels in the body may likely play a part as well. Studies in experimental animals have also confirmed that fructose can increase blood pressure. (18)

7. Heart Disease

The fact that HFCS raises blood pressure is reason enough to make it extremely bad for your heart. High blood pressure is part of a cluster of dangerous health issues called metabolic syndrome, which increases your risk for heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

Research shows that in subjects who had healthy glucose tolerance and those who had unhealthy glucose tolerance, fructose caused a general increase in both the total serum cholesterol and in the low density lipoproteins (LDL) in most of the subjects, which puts a person at risk for coronary heart disease.

According to a 15-year Harvard study, participants who took in 25 percent or more of their daily calories as sugar were more than twice as likely to die from heart disease as those whose diets included less than 10 percent added sugar. (19) This sugar intake could be from HFCS or from another source of sugar, but it’s why we need to eliminate HFCS from our diets and keep overall sugar intake, even from truly natural sources, at a healthy, low level.

8. Leaky Gut Syndrome

Leaky gut syndrome is also referred to as increased intestinal permeability. When you have this condition, the “net” in your digestive tract gets damaged, which allows proteins (like gluten), bad bacteria and undigested particles to pass into your bloodstream.

Research done at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute found that free fructose from HFCS requires more energy to be absorbed by the gut and soaks up two phosphorous molecules from ATP (our body’s energy source). This depletes the energy fuel source in our guts required to maintain the integrity of our intestinal linings. Large doses of free fructose have been shown to literally punch holes in the intestinal lining, creating a leaky gut. (20)

Once these holes in the lining exist, it’s very easy for unwanted toxins and food to enter your bloodstream. These invaders are not meant to be in the bloodstream so they trigger inflammation in the body. Inflammation is at the root of so many health problems including obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia and accelerated aging.

9. Increased Mercury Intake

Multiple studies have found alarming amounts of mercury in products containing high fructose corn syrup, which can contribute to dangerous mercury poisoning. We know that mercury is extremely toxic to our bodies, and it’s especially disturbing for a developing child to be exposed to mercury. Mercury has negative effects on the liver, kidneys, brain and other internal organs.

In a study published in Environmental Health, mercury was detected in almost 50 percent of samples of commercial high fructose corn syrup. Another highly concerning study by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy found mercury in about a third of 55 popular brand name food and beverage products. These common products all had HFCS as the first or second highest labeled ingredients. Brands behind the products tested included Kraft, Quaker, Hershey’s and Smucker’s. (21)

HFCS vs. Corn Syrup vs. Sugar vs. Natural Sweeteners

No matter the source of sugar, you always should watch that your overall intake of sugar isn’t too high. But the question continues: Is HFCS more of a health risk than other sweeteners?

To help answer this questions, let’s break down the main differences and similarities between the various sweeteners out there. What makes them good, and what makes them bad?

High Fructose Corn Syrup

  • To create HFCS, caustic soda is used to shuck the corn kernel from its starch, and corn syrup is then created. Enzymes (commonly GMO) are introduced to convert the corn syrup’s sugars to super-sweet fructose.
  • The alpha-amylase and glucoamylase used in HFCS processing have been genetically modified to improve their heat stability for the production of HFCS.
  • HFCS contains no enzymes, vitamins or minerals, only sugar and calories.
  • Since HFCS is produced from corn, a natural vegetable, some people try to say that it’s a natural sugar. But there is so much processing that goes on to produce and chemically alter corn to make it into HFCS that it’s so far from natural. Plus, so much of the corn today isn’t even natural itself because it’s being genetically modified by growers for bigger crop yields and more money.
  • HFCS’s flavor is similar to sugar, but HFCS is sweeter and cheaper.
  • Researchers who measured the relative sweetness of natural and artificial sweeteners found HFCS to be 1.5 times sweeter than table sugar. (22)
  • HFCS is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar. (23)
  • Unlike sugar, you’ll never see HFCS in the supermarket because it’s only available to food processors.

Corn syrup

  • Corn syrup is primarily made from the cornstarch of yellow No. 2 dent corn that’s converted to a syrup using sulfur dioxidehydrochloric acid or various enzymes, and water.
  • Cornstarch is converted into ordinary corn syrup through a process called acid hydrolysis.
  • Ordinary corn syrup contains dextrose sugar, which is about three-quarters as sweet as the sucrose sugar in cane or beet sugar.
  • High fructose corn syrup takes corn syrup and makes it even more processed and health-hazardous due to HFCS’s resulting high fructose content.
  • Due to the ample supply of corn in this country, it’s expected that corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup will continue to be used extensively in consumable products.

Agave

  • While it’s marketed and consumed today as a “natural” sweetener,” I agree with Dr. Jonny Bowden that agave nectar or agave syrup is basically high fructose corn syrup masquerading as a health food. (24) According to Dr. Bowden, “Research shows that it’s the fructose part of sweeteners that’s the most dangerous. Fructose causes insulin resistance and significantly raises triglycerides (a risk factor for heart disease). It also increases fat around the middle which in turn puts you at greater risk for diabetes, heart disease and metabolic syndrome (AKA prediabetes).”
  • There is a debate in natural health and medical circles whether or not the health claims by manufacturers are true, making agave quite controversial.
  • It’s about 1.5 times sweeter than regular sugar and contains roughly 60 calories per tablespoon, which is about 20 calories more than the same amount of table sugar.
  • Agave nectar is supposedly lower on the glycemic index (a number that represents the effect a particular food has on someone’s blood sugar), but these claims don’t seem to be founded on sound science.
  • Even if agave nectar has a low glycemic index, it’s largely made of fructose, the single most damaging form of sugar.
  • It has the highest fructose content of any commercial sweetener on the market.
  • Compared to the 1:1 fructose/glucose ratio of sugar and high fructose corn syrup, agave nearly has a whopping 2:1 ratio.

Sugar

  • Both sugar and HFCS begin out in the field — sugar as sugarcane or the sugar beet and high fructose corn syrup as corn.
  • Common white sugar or table sugar comes from sugarcane that undergoes washing and separation that produces naturally white crystals that are 99.9 percent sucrose. Raw sugar is less processed and contains 96 percent sucrose and 4 percent of plant materials contained in the mother liquid. (25)
  • The fructose in HFCS is a monosaccharide or single sugar molecule while sugar’s sucrose consists of one molecule of glucose linked with one molecule of fructose.
  • HFCS’s fructose can be directly absorbed through your small intestine into your blood while sucrose must be broken down into glucose plus fructose by an enzyme called sucrase present in the walls of your small intestine before the two resulting sugars are absorbed into your blood.
  • Extra calories from sucrose- and fructose-sweetened foods can both increase fat accumulation in your blood, liver and fatty tissues, which increases your risk for developing diabetes and heart disease.
  • Sucanat is a sugar product that comes from dehydrated sugarcane juice and retains all of the nutrients found in natural sugarcane juice, including iron, calcium, vitamin B6 and potassium.
  • Brown sugar has molasses added into it, and it contains calcium, potassium, iron and magnesium while white sugar contains none of these. (26)
  • White sugar and HFCS both provide empty, nutrition-less calories.

Natural Sweeteners (Minus Agave)

  • Raw honey is a great example of a natural sweetener that not only sweetens, but is a true superfood with awesome health benefits. Even though it contains fructose, it’s also loaded with enzymes, antioxidants, iron, zinc, potassium, calcium, phosphorous, vitamin B6, riboflavin and niacin. Together, these essential nutrients help neutralize free radicals while promoting the growth of healthy bacteria in the digestive tract.
  • Stevia is native to South America and has been used for hundreds of years in that region to support healthy blood sugar levels and prompt weight loss.
  • Fruits like dates and bananas make excellent sweeteners. While they do contain naturally occurring fructose, they also contain fiber, vitamins and minerals that make their processing in the body a lot more healthy than the fructose in HFCS or corn syrup. When the sugar in fruit is consumed, it doesn’t exhibit the same negative biological effects as the free high fructose doses found in corn sugars.
  • Even natural sweeteners need to be used in moderation because even natural sugars raise your blood sugar, and high blood sugar levels lead to all kinds of health problems, including diabetes.
  • In moderation, natural sugars, like those from fruit, have proven health benefits for those of us who don’t already have blood sugar problems.

Best Alternatives

Some of the best alternatives to HFCS include TRULY natural sweeteners like raw honey and maple syrup. When you’re reading ingredient labels (which I hope you do), look for these natural sweeteners and steer clear of anything that contains high fructose corn syrup.

These are the top 10 sugar substitutes and HFCS alternatives I recommend:

  • Raw Honey (1 tablespoon – 64 calories)
  • Stevia (0 calories)
  • Dates (1 Medjool date – 66 calories)
  • Coconut Sugar (1 tablespoon – 45 calories)
  • Maple Syrup (1 tablespoon – 52 calories)
  • Blackstrap Molasses (1 tablespoon – 47 calories)
  • Balsamic Glaze (1 tablespoon – 20–40 calories depending on thickness)
  • Banana Puree (1 cup – 200 calories)
  • Brown Rice Syrup (1 tablespoon – 55 calories)
  • Real Fruit Jam (varies depending on fruit)

The Nefarious History of High Fructose Corn Syrup

Commercial production of corn syrup began in 1864. By 1967, the Clinton Corn Processing Co. of Iowa had an exclusive license to manufacture and begin shipping an early version of HCFS.

After being classified as “generally recognized as safe” by the FDA in 1976, HFCS began to replace sugar as the main sweetener of soft drinks in the U.S. At the same time, rates of obesity rose. That correlation, in combination with laboratory research and epidemiological studies, suggested a link between consuming large amounts of fructose and elevated blood triglycerides, uric acid levels and weight. Concern about the health effects of HFCS truly is decades old.

Since 1797, U.S. sugar tariffs and quotas have kept imported sugar prices high (up to twice the global price) while subsidies to corn growers keep the price of HFCS’s main ingredient, corn, down. In the 1970s, unfortunately, many companies looking for a cheaper sweetener rapidly adopted HFCS as their sweetener of choice due to its high availability and cheap price tag.

HFC’s source is corn, which is a highly dependable, renewable and abundant agricultural raw material. This has guarded HFCS from the price and availability extremes of sucrose or table sugar. Another reason HFCS is attractive to manufacturers is the fact that it’s stable in acidic foods and beverages.

Yet another big reason that HFCS remains in our consumable products given major health concerns? One word: lobbying. Huge corporations put a lot of time and money into lobbying efforts to ensure that government corn subsidies continue. In this country, the Corn Refiners Association has tried its best to counter negative public perceptions by marketing campaigns describing HFCS as “natural” and by attempting to change high fructose corn syrup’s name and identity to “corn sugar.” Thankfully, products in the U.S. that contain high fructose corn syrup are not allowed to use “natural” in their labeling, but the debate goes on. Earlier in 2016, the FDA was looking for feedback on the use of “natural” on food labeling. Unfortunately, it’s still not clear to everyone, specifically to the powers that be, what should be considered natural these days.

To make things even worse, in recent years physicians are also directly targeted by the people who are behind the creation and continual push of HFCS. One doctor, Dr. Mark Hyman, says that he received a 12-page color glossy monograph from the Corn Refiners Association reviewing the “science” that HFCS was safe and no different than cane sugar. The Corn Refiners Association also warned him of the errors of his ways (his knocking of HFCS) and put him on “notice.” The fight against HFCS is real.

Final Thoughts

  • Avoid any products containing high fructose corn syrup or added fructose, which have many negative health effects on the body.
  • Fruit juice, even the unsweetened variety, naturally contain fructose and should be consumed in very small quantities. Eating a whole fruit with its blood sugar-balancing fiber is a much better option than juice.
  • A big way to avoid high fructose corn syrup is to completely remove ultra-processed foods from your diet.
  • Another great way is to avoid all sweetened soft drinks. The average soda contains toxic levels of HFCS. Opt for naturally carbonated mineral water, herbal tea or green tea instead, but stick to home brews since the majority of commercially bottled iced teas are also loaded with HFCS.
  • Overall, you want to keep your sugar intake low no matter whether the source is natural, “natural” or man-made.
  • High fructose corn syrup definitely tops my list of health-hazardous ingredients to avoid as much as humanly possible.

Source: DrAxe