Government Says deadly toxin Aspartame Is Good For You

[GazeboflossUK]

Government Says Aspartame Is Good For You

AP calls study independent, omits previous human studies showing Aspartame danger

The deadly toxin Aspartame which is included in more than 6,000 food and drink products around the world is good for you according to a new government study. The Associated Press falsely labels the results as independent and omits referencing previous human studies undertaken by groups with no corporate or government ties that concluded the opposite.

 

Associated Press health correspondent Marilynn Marchione seems to revel in suggesting the study is beyond reproach because it uses human subjects rather than rats.

 

"A huge federal study in people -- not rats -- takes the fizz out of arguments that the diet soda sweetener aspartame might raise the risk of cancer," smarms the article in an attempt to discredit last year's Italian study which linked aspartame to an increased risk of leukaemias and lymphomas in female lab rats "at doses very close to the acceptable daily intake for humans."

 

In putting the study in this context, the Associated Press has lied by omission. Numerous independent controlled studies (not ones conducted by corporations or government) using human subjects have concluded that aspartame is deadly. They are Camfield (1992), Elsas (1988), Gulya (1992), Koehler (1988), Kulczycki (1995), Spiers (1988), Van Den Eeden (1994), Walton (1993). Why doesn't the AP mention any of these studies?

 

Why doesn't the AP mention the fact that "out of 90 independently-funded studies, 83 of them found one or more

problems caused by aspartame. But out of the 74 studies funded by the aspartame industry (e.g., Monsanto, G.D. Searle, ILSI, etc.), every single one of them claimed that no problems were found?"

The AP immediately draws the conclusion that the study was, "done by reputable researchers independent of any funding or ties to industry groups."

 

The AP cites the Center For Science in the Public Interest as praising the results of the study. CFSPI is a Rockefeller front organization that also receives funding from Ted Turner's Nuclear Threat Initiative. Its board of directors is also littered with former government henchmen, including former FDA officials.

 

Having the federal government conduct studies that heavily impact profits of major corporations depending on the results and calling them independent is like Charles Manson being judged by Jeffrey Dahmer. In the 21st century of corporate fascism the two are inseparable from one another.

 

The Aspartame controversy is noted for the fact that it explicitly connects government conflicts of interest with corporations. Donald Rumsfeld became the chief executive officer of a worldwide pharmaceutical G.D. Searle & Company (later bought out by Monsanto) in 1977, 12 years after aspartame was discovered by G.D. Searle chemist James Schlatter.

 

A story by Rishi Mehta, associate commentary editor for the University of Connecticut Daily Campus newspaper, points out the following: “In 1981, after over 15 years of FDA disapproval of aspartame, Rumsfeld said in a Searle sales meeting that he would use ‘political rather than scientific means’ to finally get FDA approval. Only 20 days later, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as 40th President of the United States, appointing Rumsfeld as Special Envoy to the Middle East and Arthur Hayes Hull Jr. - a friend of Rumsfeld's - to FDA commissioner."

If one of the most influential members of the current administration has publicly stated that he would use political pressure to force the acceptance of aspartame would it would therefore overwhelmingly be in the interest of a federal government study to conclude that the use of aspartame was acceptable?

 

Yes.

 

Therefore the study is not independent and it is not credible.

 

Futhermore, the FDA has been caught in the past removing negative data from government studies that indicated aspartame was dangerous to humans.

 

According to consumer rights group Mission Possible, "Since its 1981 approval, the FDA has published a list of 92 symptoms of aspartame poisoning, which includes headaches, vision loss including blindness, seizures, neurological problems, cardiovascular problems and death. The FDA admits adverse reactions to aspartame comprise about 80 percent of consumer complaints it receives each year."

 

Proponents of aspartame are like the idiots in the 50's who said there were no health dangers in smoking. Moves by British parliamentarians and bills such as one in New Jersey calling for the outright banning of aspartame in all foods should be supported and this poison-peddling industry shut down.

 

Original Artical = http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/050406goodforyou.htm

[CLOUDNINE]

I dont know about this one, people have been drinking diet coke for years, and alot of diabetics use the stuff daily. Personally I use the stuff daily to keep my sugar consumption low. Pretty much all diet products have some sort of artificial sweetner in it but brain cancer hasnt increased considerably, so i dont know. Hopefully not though for my sake.

[CLOUDNINE]

You ever read stuff about the Illuminatti or New World Order? The theories are out there, but interesting .

[berrywoman]

*slaps forehead* whats next.....

[GazeboflossUK]

You ever read stuff about the Illuminatti or New World Order? The theories are out there' date=' but interesting .[/quote']

 

Yeah...I know bundles about the NWO and the global elite. The whole 9/11 thing is all part of that too, it's part of their plan essentially. It's all linked.

Here's a ton of info about those guys. http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_new_world_order.html

As well as the Bilderberg Group http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_bilderberg.html

 

This is stuff people should know about....lot's of things you see and read about make so much sense when you have read as much as I have. It's worth knowing though.

[CLOUDNINE]

yeah some crazy stuff for sure. ill have to check that out.

[GazeboflossUK]

yeah some crazy stuff for sure. ill have to check that out.

 

Yes, do check it out......it's all very well documented and referenced.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

almost EVERYTHING IS BAD FOR YOU. except natural foods basically. just about anything causes cancer now...FRENCH FRIES cause cancer.... you dont see people calling for it to be banned or it being banned. the sad fact is now days just about anything you eat unless its natural like whole wheats or fruits is very very very bad for you. you cannot avoid dangerous things in your food unless you eat natural foods, even then its not 100% safe.

[badlydrawngirl]

French Fries are bad for you, but fat chunky chips from the chip shop aren't as bad :nice:

[Egghead]

French Fries are bad for you' date=' but fat chunky chips from the chip shop aren't as bad :nice:[/quote']

 

Oh, how I miss newspaper-wrapped chips

[Ambergris]

I have read the article in New York Times before and it's not like Aspartame is a deadly toxin that increases risk of Cancer... In fact scientist still do not agree about its effects. Many previously studies haven't shown any bad sign about it but now this very controversial research made by Italian scientist says it is dangerous... Obviously there's an urgent and serious research needed to clear the nature of this substance since it is a widely used sweeten chemical people all over the world consume unaware of its effects on human health.

[GazeboflossUK]

Many previously studies haven't shown any bad sign about it but now this very controversial research made by Italian scientist says it is dangerous....

 

Well, but....The following controlled human studies have shown that aspartame can

cause adverse changes or health problems: Camfield (1992), Elsas

(1988), Gulya (1992), Koehler (1988), Kulczycki (1995), Spiers

(1988), Van Den Eeden (1994), Walton (1993). Therefore, if you read

statements implying that there is no controlled research showing

problems with aspartame, you can rest assured that the writer is

completely ignorant of the scientific literature or simply relating

public relations nonsense.

 

 

I do agree that more tests need to be done.