The Food Safety Authority attempted to censor and discredit her. I followed news reports of Betty's movements in New Zealand, how she was treated by the bureaucracy there - and you had to commisserate. But she was all over the press so she made her splash. It's apparent that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority is on the take from Monsanto or its NutraSweet subsidiary, because in my experience, the only "experts" and organizations hostile to the truth about NutraSweet have been bribed, in effect or straight out, to claim that the toxin is safe to ingest. (See, for example: http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2007/08/canadian-tv-nutrasweet-advocate-dr-joe.html)
Thirteen mainstream research studies in 24 months showing aspartame toxicity, and three relevant studies on methanol and formaldehyde:
Murray 2007.08.17
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1464
It's simple, though (a simple criminal conspiracy ... ) - aspartame breaks down to formaldehyde in the human digestive system. Would you let your children swallow formaldehyde? "That's crazy," you say, you wouldn't do that? Well, if they drink Diet Coke, they DO swallow formaldehyde. But you're right - actually imbibing the crap IS crazy... - AC
Dear Alex,
I'm home now. It was a real media blitz, radio, TV, print interviews, and lectures, Auckland and Wellington Medical schools and even Christchurch. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority tried to stop the people from finding out with constant press releases. Here is my letter to them just published.
All my best,
Betty
Scoop News
Challenge to Dr. Andrew Mckenzie, NZFSA
Thursday, 16 August 2007, 10:00 am
Press Release: Betty Martini
[Re:
Claims Lack Weight - NZFSA]
Challenge to Dr. Andrew Mckenzie, NZFSA:
You assert claims made by anti-aspartame victims aren't supported by evidence. How would you know since NZFSA refused the voluminous medical evidence I came 10,000 miles with to help the people of New Zealand? You claim "NZFSA would obviously consider any new, sound scientific evidence on aspartame, as it would and does on any food safety issues." NZFSA refused the meeting to receive sound science!
John Reeve says "people making these claims need to come clean about the credentials they have." I'll explain mine. I'm the messenger who brought a suitcase full of scientific peer reviewed research from credentialed experts. For 15 years I've researched aspartame. The 1,000 page text "Aspartame Disease An Ignored Epidemic" by world famous Dr. H. J. Roberts was dedicated to me. I've collected thousands of case histories from aspartame victims. I'm in regular contact with the leading medical researchers in this field. It was their impeccable evidence you refused. And I'm founder of Mission Possible World Health International with branches in 37 nations.
Now I ask you, John Reeve, and you, Dr McKenzie: What do you know about this toxin that you didn't get from the sellers of the poison? Have you examined the FDA list of 92 symptoms, including death, from over 10,000 volunteered complaints? The most ever received by FDA till they slammed the complaint window 10 years ago. Have you analyzed the two massive multi-year studies on thousands of animals done by the Ramazzini institute? Have you read the protest of the American National Soft Drink Association in our Congressional Record, which was against approval of this chemical?
I doubt such evidence even interests you. You sit in positions of authority charged with protecting the citizens of beautiful New Zealand and all you seek to protect are the business interests of poisoners. With thumbs in ears and palms over eyes you're intentionally blind and deaf to the issue.
Before I left America I sent a rebuttal of pure industry propaganda?
http://www.wnho.net/nzfsa_aspartame_propaganda.htm It was put on a
banner on web sites and tracking shows NZFSA read it again. Do you find it too hard to explain scientific peer reviewed research like the Trocho Study, which shows the formaldehyde converted from free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue and damages DNA?
http://www.wnho.net/formaldehyde_from_aspartame.pdf
Even aspartame manufacturers refuse to discuss it, because they can't without revealing aspartame is a chemical poison. Instead they do what they are known to do, try and assassinate the character of the researcher. They didn't get away with it; this study is all over the world. Can you explain away why you uphold a product that embalms the body?
You continue, "Every right-thinking individual needs to ask 'does this person have anything to say that's backed by evidence?' and 'what are theirqualifications for making these claims?'. Obviously, you're talking about me since I brought the records for you from America and was waiting in front of NZFSA's front door while the forum was going on upstairs. Since when do you make decisions about whether anyone has anything to say without talking to them and finding out whether its backed by evidence. You shut the door on the evidence and then say we should make it available for scrutiny. Obviously if I have been taking the cases for 15 years and have
operations in 37 nations and the states I must be qualified to hand you records!
As far as anecdotal claims perhaps it would have interested you to look at the FDA's own report of 92 documented symptoms including four
types of seizures to coma and death. http://www.wnho.net/92_aspartame_symptoms.pdf It's on FDA stationery, does that qualify for you to read it?
How can you discard a prestigious aspartame and cancer study like Ramazzini which has been scientifically peer reviewed by 7 world experts. The toxicology people insist a study should be at least 2 years, but 3 is better. It comes down to money to fund it, the real issue. As an example, "brain tumors are extremely rare before age one and one-half in the rat". (Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills"). When this study was done it was meant to take into every consideration even about cancer in old age. Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., who wrote this book said " My review of the first Ramazzini Study concluded that the study was one of the best designed, comprehensive and conclusive studies done to date on the multipotent carcinogenic potential of aspartame. This second study is even more conclusive, in that it shows a dose-dependent statistically significant increase in lymphomas/leukemia in both male and female rats exposed to aspartame. These two cancers are the fastest growing cancers in people under age 30.
"Also, of major concern is their finding of statistically significant increases in breast cancer in animals exposed to aspartame. With newer studies clearly indicating that toxic exposures during fetal development can dramatically increase the cancer risk of the offspring, this study takes on a very important meaning to all pregnant women consuming aspartame products. Likewise, small children are at considerable risk of the later development of these highly fatal cancers.
"It should be appreciated that the doses used in these studies fall within the range of doses seen in everyday users of aspartame. This study, along with the first study, should convince any reasonable scientific mind, as well as the public at large, that this product should be removed from the market."
Here are summaries of these studies:
The first ERF study (2005) was conducted on 1800 Sprague-Dawley rats
(100-150/per sex/per group). In order to simulate daily human intake, aspartame was added to the standard rat diet in quantities of 5000,
2500, 100, 500, 20, 4, and 0 mg/Kg of body weight. Treatment of the animals began at 8 weeks of age and continued until spontaneous death. The results show that APM causes a statistically significant, dose-related increase of lymphomas/leukemias and malignant tumors of the renal pelvis in females and malignant tumors of peripheral nerves in males. These results demonstrate for the first time that APM is a carcinogenic agent, capable of inducing malignancies at various dose levels, including those lower than the current acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans (50 mg/kg of body weight in the US, 40 mg/kg of body weight in the EU).
The second ERF study (2007) was conducted on 400 Sprague-Dawley rats (70-95/per sex/per group). In order to simulate daily human intake, aspartame was added to the standard rat diet in quantities of 100, 20, and 0 mg/Kg of body weight. Treatment of the animals began on the 12th day of fetal life until natural death. The results of the second study show an increased incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in female rats with respect to the first study. Moreover, the study shows that when lifespan exposure to APM begins during fetal life, the age at which lymphomas/leukemias develop in females is anticipated. For the first time, a statistically significant increase in mammary cancers in females was also observed in the second study. The results of this transplacental carcinogenicity bioassay not only confirm, but also reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APMs multipotential carcinogenicity.
With all industry's attempts to rebut these studies all they come up with is the "oatmeal - brownie" study. They used a ten-year-old multifood form that only mentioned aspartame in one of 56 questions.
http://www.wnho.net/halt_the_spin_on_bogus_studies.htm Is this what
NZFSA would consider good science? When that didn't work the European
Food Safety Authority said the cancers must have been caused by the respiratory disease of the rats. With this outlandish reply Dr. Soffritti reported that respiratory disease is the dying process. Connections to aspartame manufacturers were published in the press and when they didn't apologize I reported them to the Universal Court of Justice. Then there was the confession they were pressured by industry to hijack science!
The late Dr. Adrian Gross, FDA toxicologist, told Congress on August 1, l985 FDA violated the Delaney Amendment because aspartame causes cancer. So its been known for a quarter of a century.
If the postman brings you journal articles you requested do you not accept them because the researcher himself didn't bring them? If you're looking for a journal article in a library do you refuse to give it credit because a library messenger hands it to you. All NZFSA had to do was accept the documents and check the credentials of the physicians or researchers who are behind the documents. I don't have to be medical doctor to hand you documents.
Then you say, "Aside from the aspersions these campaigners cast on the United States Food and Drug Administration, how do they explain the decision by other food safety regulators around the world, such as the United Kingdom food Standards Authority and the European Food Safety Authority, to allow its use?" It's all answered in the letter to NZFSA above. Despite the press releases of the NZFSA there was a media blitz and the public got the message.
You say, "The fact is, a large amount of very good science shows aspartame is a very safe substance. Studies that purport to show otherwise have thus far been overwhelmingly rejected by leading food safety authorities as flawed." Regarding the studies that were done by Searle, the original manufacturer, the FDA asked for indictment for fraud under Title 18, Section 1001. You can't take poison and make it show safety! While both US Prosecutors were hired by the defense team and the statute of limitations expired, the FDA still revoked the petition for approval. Don Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle and was responsible for getting it marketed by political chicanery instead of science. They way he did it is even exposed in a film,
"Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World". www.amazon.com If NZFSA had met
with me they would have been given a copy which interviews leading
experts on aspartame toxicity. When Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, FDA toxicologist, testified to Congress in l987 she said aspartame still had not been proven safe, all studies were built on a foundation of sand.
The modus operandi of the manufacturers is to accept industry controlled and financed studies and rebut those that are "independently" scientifically peer reviewed. Ralph Walton, M.D., did research on scientific peer reviewed studies and "funding".
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html This showed that 92% of independent, scientific peer reviewed studies showed the problems that aspartame triggers. If you remove 6 the FDA had something to do with since they gave their loyalty to the manufacturers, and 1 pro-aspartame summary, 100% of independent, scientific peer reviewed studies show the problems. Now explain why when independent and unbiased researchers do studies the problems are evident, but when the manufacturers do studies they show safety? Independent researchers search for the truth, manufacturers are interested in defending their product. That's why there is ILSI, a research front group. Read the UPI investigation: http://www.dorway.com/upipaper.txt
Dr. Walton also did his own study, "Adverse Reactions to Aspartame: Double-Blind Challenge in Patients from a Vulnerable Population," Monsanto, who had acquired Searle, promised to provide the aspartame but changed their mind because they couldn't control the research. They knew the results would be a disaster for them. One participant suffered conjunctival bleeding and another had a retinal detachment. Other subjects felt they'd been poisoned, so the institution interrupted the study. The administrator of the hospital had the retinal detachment, and he's now permanently blind in one eye from aspartame.
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Aspartame-Adverse-Reactions-1993.htm
Obviously after 25 years on the market we know what aspartame triggers. There are medical books about it. Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, by H. J. Roberts, M.D. and Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills by neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D.
You say, "If there is some robust yet until now unknown evidence that aspartame causes the raft of problems suggested then those campaigners, if they really care about public health, should make the evidence available for scrutiny." I was standing at the door with the evidence and NZFSA wouldn't receive it. You are supposed to represent the people of New Zealand, not commercial interests.
Then when the media starts publicizing the stories like Abby Cormack who almost died of it you get upset. "You say "But holding meetings and giving talks, as these activists are doing, cannot be classed as robust, sound science." What do you expect people to do when the NZFSA refuses to accept the scientific peer reviewed research and Annette King of Food Safety has ignored the cries of the victims for years, as well as documentation? The media should be congratulated for getting the issue to the public. New Zealand consumers now are alerted to abstain from aspartame and the reports coming in show their symptoms are disappearing. Isn't what you object to is the people finding out? Robust sound science was used in the lectures. Many people there simply don't know 951 is the number of death, also included on the FDA report.
You speak about diabetes and obesity. Diabetic specialist H. J. Roberts, M.D., who wrote the medical text reports aspartame can precipitate diabetes, simulates and aggravates diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, destroys the optic nerve, causes diabetics to go into convulsions and interacts with insulin. Read the Journal of Diabetes of India: http://www.dorway.com/barua.html As to obesity, a study at the University of Texas links diet drinks with obesity. They used 8 years of data to do this epidemiology study. Furthermore, it was admitted in the Congressional Record of May, 1985, the protest of NSDA, saying that aspartame makes you crave carbohydrates and so you gain weight. I brought this congressional record to New Zealand as well as the one in August where the FDA admitted aspartame causes cancer. Read Dr. Sandra Cabot's (Mission Possible Australia) article
"Aspartame Makes You Fatter" in the Report For Schools:
http://www.mpwhi.com/report_on_aspartame_and_children.htm Do you
really want to advocate a product that is actually causing the problem?
Now I make you this challenge. NZFSA says in November they will bring in their experts on the matter. Since I was not allowed to give you the records because I'm not an MD, then lets provide MD's with impeccable credentials. You can have physicians like Walton, Roberts and Blaylock mentioned in this letter who have the credentials you want and have even taken care of aspartame victims in the trenches of medical practice for decades. You can set them up by video so New Zealand can get the real facts. Besides Ramazzini there are even more damning studies.
It boils down to this, if you are there to protect the people of New Zealand allow the experts to testify in November. If you're there for industry just send me an excuse.
Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
ENDS
www.mpwhi.com and
www.dorway.com, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
Aspartame Toxicity Center,
No comments:
Post a Comment