Elements Of Health

Alternative Health and Healing Secrets!



Alternative Health and Healing Secrets!


Upcoming information: Nutritional therapy, food toxins, Chemtrails, water pollution, vaccines, medical recalls, emerging diseases, pesticides, forbidden cures, immunity boosting, Secret technology, Acupuncture, GE foods, drugs. Plus Much More!

 This site was created to share alternative medicine information, and historical cures that worked, We do not sell anything on this site.

New updated articles and new sections will be added daily. 

view:  full / summary

Talk Doesn't Pay, So Psychiatry Turns to Drug Therapy

Posted by Myra on March 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM Comments comments (0)
Alone with his psychiatrist, the patient confided that his newborn had serious health problems, his distraught wife was screaming at him and he had started drinking again. With his life and second marriage falling apart, the man said he needed help.

But the psychiatrist, Dr. Donald Levin, stopped him and said: “Hold it. I’m not your therapist. I could adjust your medications, but I don’t think that’s appropriate.”

Like many of the nation’s 48,000 psychiatrists, Dr. Levin, in large part because of changes in how much insurance will pay, no longer provides talk therapy, the form of psychiatry popularized by Sigmund Freud that dominated the profession for decades. Instead, he prescribes medication, usually after a brief consultation with each patient.


Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath   
Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA
Vaccines - http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com
Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes start March 4

Open Letter to the FDA

Posted by Myra on February 25, 2011 at 4:59 AM Comments comments (0)

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: [Health_and_Healing] Open letter to FDA answering letter of 1/11/11: Aspartame and methanol/etc. [1 Attachment]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:27:29 -0500
From: Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum. <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Commissioner-fda.gov <[email protected]>, mitchell.cheeseman-fda.hhs.gov <[email protected]>, laura.tarantino-fda.hhs.gov <[email protected]>,David:;, Jaffe Lyle D <[email protected]>,[email protected], [email protected], david.acheson-fda.hhs.gov <[email protected]>, david.graham1-fda.hhs.gov <[email protected]>

[Attachment(s) from Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum. included below]

February 25, 2011
Felicia M. Ellison, M.S.
Consumer Safety Officer, HFS-265
Division o Petition Review
Office of Food Additive Safety
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration
College Park, MD
Dear Mrs. Ellison:
Thank you for answering my letter faxed to you on December  4, 2010.  I would like to go over your answers.  Cynthia Crossen in her book “The Tainted Truth:  The Manipulation of Fact in America”, said: “In today’s corporate dominated information market truth has become to belong to those who commission it”. The FDA has been using industry’s propaganda so long they don't realize how it conflicts with reality and scientific documentation. I will give you in brief my questions you answered in red and my comments in black.  . 
1.  How could aspartame possibly have been considered as a suitable food additive in the first place, if the MSDS had been considered?
You have told us:-
“The MSDS is not appropriate nor in many cases relevant for the risk assessment of Methanol’s use in aspartame because of the routes of exposure, dosages and uncontrolled nature of the human toxicity data derived from the MSDS”

Our response:-
The MSDS for methanol (Methyl Alcohol) is a mandatory health and safety document prepared by the producers of pure methanol setting out in an international formalized way the hazards associated with their product. It is required by OSHA to be provided to employers and employees “using” Pure methanol, from manufacturing industries all the way down to research labs, hospitals, Pharmacies and school laboratories; the mandatory hazard labelling for any container in which pure methanol is sold is shown above.
If an MSDS is legally required to protect the health of anyone just handling pure methanol,(i) it must surely be an appropriate document to be consulted by anyone intending to allow methanol to be consumed in food. The severe toxicity of methanol in man has been known for 150 yrs, below are some relevant extracts from the MSDS of the “TERRA Nitrogen Corporation”
“Methanol is listed as a “Poison-Class B”; It is harmful if swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Ingestion of as little as one ounce can cause irreversible injury to the nervous system, blindness, or death. It cannot be made non-poisonous in man”
Ingestion may cause serious poisoning with effects similar to those of inhalation and absorption through the skin. Toxic effects are more common after ingestion. Death from as
little as one ounce has been reported”
“Summary of Chronic Exposure:
Methanol is slowly eliminated from the body; hence repeated exposures may result in toxic levels in the blood and tissues. Due to its slow elimination, methanol should be regarded as
a cumulative poison. Though single exposures to fumes may cause no harmful effect, daily exposure may result in the accumulation of sufficient methanol in the body to cause illness”
LDLo Human:............................................143 mg/kg; Eye, Pul, GIT
LD50 Mouse:.............................................7300 mg/kg
LC50 Rat:..................................................64,000 ppm / 4 hours  ( 5628mg/kg)
LC50 Goldfish:..........................................250 ppm / 11hours
The route of exposure for aspartame (Ingestion) is fully covered here also the very low (LDlo) for eye damage. The severe toxicity and metabolic damage caused through the cumulative effect of chronic methanol ingestion is also very clear – NO one should be consuming pure methanol in ANY quantities – It is far too dangerous. 
2.       Show us how you established a NOAEL
 for free methanol - 10% of aspartame.
You have told us:-
A NOAEL for methanol was never established; Even though methanol constitutes a full 10% w/w of aspartame; you relied on setting a NOAEL by the dosing of aspartame to rats and assumed by the absence of methanol poisoning symptoms and the small amount of free methanol released that “methanol was not of toxicological concern”
Our response:-
(ii) Were you totally unaware of the contents of the MSDS of methanol?
(iii) Were you totally unaware of the destructive metabolism of methanol in the human body :-      Methanol >Formaldehyde >Formic Acid >Co2 >H2o?
(iv) Were you totally unaware of the severe toxic cumulative effect of free methanol in the human body, building up over time (0-20yrs) eventually causing organ, tissue and neurological damage?
C:UsersJimDesktopAspartame Useful InfoEPA ADI for methanol   
NOTE: The fact that fruits and vegetables in nature deliver more methanol than aspartame is totally irrelevant.
  3. What science do you have to support the belief that the body handles the free methanol from aspartame in the same way as for methanol in nature?
You have told us:-
“That there is no significant difference in the pharmacokinetics between “free” methanol and “dietary” methanol. The overall disposition of methanol in nature (dietary methanol) is very similar to the biotransformation (Metabolism) of the methyl group of methanol from aspartame (free methanol); Based on these findings there is no scientific basis or need to differentiate “free” methanol form “Dietary” methanol.
Our response:-
In your explanation you mixed up “free methanol” and “methanol in nature” when you said -“free methanol” is readily absorbed from the stomach whereas aspartame must pass into the into the small intestine---“ What I would accept is - “free methanol from aspartame is readily absorbed from the stomach whereas natural (dietary methanol) must pass into the small intestine ---“ the distinction between “free methanol” and “methanol in nature” (dietary methanol) is very important and they are both very different.
“Pure methanol”, “free methanol” and “dietary methanol” are all the same chemical MEoH; Aspartame contains pure methanol in the form of its 10% methyl ester; At a temperature of 86f the methyl ester reverts back and releases the pure methanol; this can happen in poor storage conditions, within the mouth (chewing gum) from tabletop sweeteners or in the stomach. Pure Methanol released in this manner is said to be “Free” IE. unbound to any inhibitors which might prevent it following its dangerous metabolic pathway – Methanol >Formaldehyde >Formic Acid > Co2 > H2o. Free methanol acts in the body in exactly the same way as pure methanol - Pure/ Free methanol is a dangerous cumulative metabolic toxin in humans.
Methanol in nature (dietary methanol) is never “Free” it is always bound to natural inhibitors which prevents the methanol following its destructive metabolic pathway and protects us by allowing time for the methanol to be cleared from our bodies safety. There are no ADI’s for carrots or apples or any other fruit or vegetables, which we know, can be consumed in any quantity without harm.
 The science is there (MSDS) Pure /Free methanol is a vicious toxin in humans, a single dose of one tablespoonful (10ml) will render you blind and 3 tablespoonfuls (30ml) could be fatal. Very small chronic (daily) doses of free methanol from aspartame, is a slow stealthy killer causing organ. tissue and neurological damage over time (0-20 yrs) this is evidenced by the many tens of thousands of anecdotal reports naming aspartame as the cause of their symptoms.
4.  What science did you rely on to be certain that the chronic (daily) ingestion of free methanol was safe at the ADI set - 50 mg/kg?
You have told us:-
Aspartame is safe for low to moderate intake. The amount used in products is self limiting? The approval reference you quoted refers to colorings? High levels of aspartame intake are unlikely to exceed the ADI if used in food with no limitations? The agency concluded that consumption of aspartame would be well below the acceptable intake and that it would be safe for its intended use.
Our response:-
This explanation falls well short of reassuring.
 In July 1974 CFSAN approved aspartame for restricted use at an ADI of 20mg/kg, then, in July 1983 they approved its use in carbonated drinks at 50mg/kg? (v) Please explain how aspartame suddenly became 2 ½ times safer?
According to the GAO report of June 1987, Searle, in 1982 when they applied to use aspartame in carbonated drinks, projected a “significant increase” in the daily consumption of aspartame specifically, that our 2-4 year olds “could potentially consume aspartame at almost 50mg/kg” Searle (naturally) backed this up with 5 studies which showed that, consumption at the projected level of our children in fact “did not result in any adverse effects”??  After reviewing these studies and others, CFSAN “concluded that the ADI of aspartame could be raised from 20mg/kg to 50mg/kg”?
(vi) Question: Is it Sensible, Legal or safe to set ADI’s according to the potential consumption of our children?
Note: in the EPA quote above point 1 Page 2, they recommend a consumption limit for methanol of 7.8mg/kg per day - this equates to 1.11mg/kg for a 70 kilo adult.
Note: Campaign colleagues in the UK have also established an ADI for methanol using the MSDS data and returned an ADI of 0.114mg/kg - see attached working sheet.
It appears the CFSAN was not in possession of all the facts it needed regarding the metabolism of methanol when considering the approval of aspartame in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. - they did however have a strong belief and obviously still do, that the methanol released form aspartame is the same as methanol in nature – this is a myth promulgated by the manufacturer to conceal the real toxic poison in their product.
It is significant that when researching the aspartame story, what little part the severe poisoning effect of methanol plays, every time it comes up, out comes the same old story - Methanol from aspartame is OK - The amount is so small - There is more methanol in fruits and vegetables - Rats can eat lots of it without harm etc. These answers have been sufficient to detract scientist’s attention away from the free methanol released by aspartame since at least 1980, and there is clear proof of this. I draw your attention again to the GAO report of June 1987 entitled “Food and Drug Administration – Food additive approval process followed for aspartame”
The independent GAO administrators relied on briefings from FDA CFSAN and Searle to conduct their study, if we look at the very first Paragraph entitled “What is Aspartame?” here we can see the myth in action, this is what GAO thought it was:-
“What Is Aspartame?
G.D. Searle and Co. began developing aspartame-a sweetener about
180 times as sweet as sugar-in 1965. It is a white, odorless, crystalline powder composed of 2 amino [email protected] acid and L-phenylalanine.
Like sugar, aspartame produces about 4 calories per gram. However,
because aspartame is sweeter than sugar, it provides only a fraction of the calories provided by a quantity of sugar yielding equivalent sweetness”
No mention of Methanol the 3rd ingredient and 10% of the product – how could they forget to mention that? In 104 pages methanol is only mentioned 7 times in different contexts and free methanol not at all. Methanol does not appear in the glossary.
Because CFSAN were not aware (or were concealing) the severe toxicity of the free methanol released form aspartame, it would appear FDA allowed a product to be released into the US food chain without adequate safety consideration of the methanol in the product.
1)     A NOAEL was not established for Methanol.
2)     Without a NOAEL for methanol it is not safe to set an ADI for aspartame.
Considering that an ADI for methanol has been set by others at – 0.114mg/kg and 1.114mg/kg which would set the aspartame ADI’s at 1.14mg/kg and 11.1mg/kg respectively. This makes the US ADI at 50mg/kg look way too high! (vii) Your comments please.
Some interesting developments are happening in Europe at present. In May last year the EFSA Advisory Forum members at their 36th meeting refused to endorse their own national expert’s recommendation that aspartame is safe- they are now not convinced and have deferred further consideration until June this year. The contentious issue with them concerns the metabolism of free methanol released by aspartame. COT and FSA are at this moment investigating the free methanol released by aspartame. There is a Public Petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament calling for the free methanol released by aspartame to be banned and a campaign organized to inform Medical practitioners of the methanol in everyone’s diet.    Dr Soffritti has completed another study of aspartame using mice and suggests that cancers found were caused by the methanol in aspartame!
The questions arising from your letter are as follows:-
(i)             The MSDS - it must surely be an appropriate document to be consulted by anyone intending to allow methanol to be consumed in food.
(ii)           Were you totally unaware of the contents of the MSDS of methanol?
(iii)         Were you totally unaware of the destructive metabolism of methanol in the human body: -      Methanol >Formaldehyde >Formic Acid >Co2 >H2o?
(iv)         Were you totally unaware of the severe toxic cumulative effect of free methanol in the human body, building up over time (0-20yrs) eventually causing organ, tissue and neurological damage?
(v)           The ADI - Please explain how aspartame suddenly became 2 ½ times safer?

(vi)         Question: Is it Sensible, Legal or safe to set ADI’s according to the potential consumption of our children?

(vii)       DA ADI for aspartame too high -Your comments please.
 Regarding other comments in your letter.  When you say other authorities, European Scientific Committee for Foods, European Food Safety Authority, AMA and American Dietetic Association all agree aspartame is safe remember they got that from FDA.  The American Dietetic Association we call Monsanto’s media flacks are the first to defend them.  These “ladies of the evening” are funded by the aspartame manufacturers and say there is no unsafe food.  There is no longer any European Scientific Committee for Foods.  Here is rebuttal to their propaganda:   http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm
OLAF (anti-fraud association in Europe) found that there was only one person making the decision on aspartame safety on  review, not a committee  Now there is only EFSA.  Incidentally I flew to Brussels to speak to the EU and brought them all the damning documents, which they deleted.  While I was there I showed them the 1000 page medical text by Dr. H. J. Roberts, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, www.sunsentpress.com  If someone was reviewing aspartame and they were told it’s a global epidemic and presented all the proof in a medical text would you expect them to be interested? No interest at all.  Miguel Angel Granero-Rosell never even turned the first page.  Likewise Peter Wagstaffe was not interested either.  Their “one person” had already made the decision. 
I suspect the manufacturers of aspartame were very concerned about how much factual information was being brought to Europe.  I was met by their welcoming committee, Immigration, who locked me in a cell for three and a half hours and interrogated me with questions like ‘if they allowed me in England how many people would find out about the dangers of aspartame’.  They opened my suitcases and immediately confiscated all lecture material on aspartame.  In the end they gave it back but this shows you how worried the aspartame industry is of solid facts they can’t rebut.  Now EFSA has inherited the aspartame propaganda.  So when the first Ramazzini Study was done it was rebutted.  However, Dr. Koeter did resign but not before he put out a press release that confessed, “We were pressured by industry to hijack science.”  So when you throw out these names you understand the influence and pressure by the aspartame industry. 
Don’t forget when you make such statements, as “the FDA believes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general population from the use of aspartame as a sweetener” the public is fully aware of the real facts.  We know it was FDA who asked for the indictment of G. D. Searle because of the studies, even though the prosecutors hired on with the defence team.  We know FDA has had so many complaints that in congressional hearings it was admitted that FDA was referring them to the AIDS Hotline. We know that the outrage over aspartame poisoning the public caused three congressional hearings where physicians and researchers spoke out about aspartame’s deadly effects. If you missed these events go to www.mpwhi.com and read them.   If aspartame is so safe, why did FDA compile a list of 92 documented symptoms from four types of seizures to coma and death?  If aspartame is safe explain 30 years of controversy, and the fact that almost 100 per cent of independent studies says its not.  Explain why the Board of Inquiry of the FDA revoked the petition, which you will also find on web.  Explain why President Reagan had to write an executive making the FDA powerless to do anything on aspartame until he could get a new commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, to FDA to over-rule the revoked petition that Dr. Jeri Goyan was about to sign into law.  He got fired at 3.00 AM so he couldn’t sign it. All these events happened when you say, “the FDA believes that there is a reasonable certain of no harm”!!! Why are there aspartame Detox centers, and an Aspartame Toxicity Center? Why are there 30 years of articles warning the public by renowned physicians and researchers?  Why are movies made warning the public of the toxicity of aspartame such as “Sweet Misery:  A Poisoned World”  Is FDA on another planet? 
Do a google search on aspartame and you’ll find about 3 million sites.  What do you suppose they are writing about?  A lot of them expose aspartame using FDA records.  How can FDA look at them and say aspartame is harmless and when scientists and others look at them they see a chemical poison that should be removed from the market.
You say FDA reviewed over 100 toxicological and clinical studies to conclude that aspartame was safe for use as a sweetener prior to approval.  You mean you have some I don’t?  It’s these studies done before approvals that were the target of an indictment for fraud requested by FDA.  I notice the FDA said about studies in the 1970’s that it showed aspartame causes birth defects.  In case you don’t realize, birth defects are “harm”.  I notice FDA in reviewing those studies made comments about Searle, for instance, saying there was benign lymphoma when it was lymphosarcoma.  Cancer also comes under the category of harm. Aspartame violates the Delaney Amendment, which prohibits putting anything in food you know will cause cancer. Also aspartame is adulterated and violates interstate commerce laws.   
Also with reference to these studies done prior to approval,  FDA Toxicologist and Task Force member, Dr Adrian Gross stated (Wilson l985): "They (G.D. Searle) lied and they didn't submit the real nature of their observations because had they done that it is more likely that a great number of these studies would have been rejected simply for adequacy. What Searle did, they took great pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the study. As I say filter and just present to the FDA what they wished the FDA to know and they did other terrible things for instance animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well they would remove these tumors from the animals."
I agree with Dr. Gross  on review.  Tumors also equal harm.  Adeno-carcinoma equals harm.  I can understand why Searle filed suit to have the task force results removed from the record.  It doesn’t sound very good to be exposed by the FDA as liars and involved in fraud  which is why FDA wanted them indicted under Title 18, Section 1001.  They just couldn’t get aspartame to show safety.  Now you tell me there were 100 toxicological and clinical studies FDA reviewed.  Please give me a list of these studies. 
While you’re at it I would like to see proof that at “normal doses” aspartame is completely hydrolyzed in the gut leaving the methanol there to be detoxified.  Since the amounts are small, the only way to ascertain this fact is using labelled aspartame.  Please cite the experimental papers that prove so.  How can you or anyone explain the presence of aspartame methanol label in tissues if its tiny amounts are freed in the intestine and detoxified (by the liver’s alcohol dehydrogenase) easily? 
This is a damning study and the only one dealing with these issues.  We know the aspartame industry had a flack try to rebut it, Tephly.  Maybe you don’t know he confessed he used the wrong test.  He must have come from one of those “rent a scientist” programs Dr. Verrett mentioned. No generalizes please, specifics.  Let’s take this to the scientific paper level. 
Also, I’m concerned with the manufacturer using an unproven drug as a sweetener without having done studies of possible interactions. 
You say the FDA continues to closely monitor scientific literature for information that might indicate potential public health concerns with artificial sweeteners like any regulated food ingredient.  Should the need arise you say the agency will take the appropriate action to protect the public health. There is so much in the scientific literature showing how deadly this drug is, you would have to trip over it to miss it. Almost 100 per cent of scientific peer reviewed studies show the problems.  When Dr. Ralph Walton researched he said 92% showed problems but if you eliminate 6 studies the FDA had something to do with, and one pro-aspartame summary, 100% of independent peer reviewed studies show what aspartame causes.  Maybe the 6 studies were eliminated because FDA just won’t tell the truth when it comes to aspartame. There were so many shenanigans with aspartame studies by Searle that Dr. John Olney finally had had enough and insisted Searle do the studies in his lab so he could watch them.  Indeed the studies showed brain damage although Searle forgot to tell you.  Brain damage is also harm! 
Lastly you say the reason you haven’t answered my citizens petition  is due to a number of competing priorities.  You wrote me the same thing 8 years ago.  You must have forgotten.  This is why laws are made.  In the case of citizens petitions you only have 180 days to answer.  You can’t ignore them according to law.  The imminent health hazard amendment was in 2007 and it’s suppose to be answered in a week or ten days. 
When you answer my FOIA please deal with facts and proof. Researchers and physicians the world over look at FDA records and independent studies and see an excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic drug.  FDA looks at the same records and sees no harm and discards damning studies.    Somebody is wrong!
Please answer the questions posed above.
Mission Possible International
Dr. Betty Martini, Founder
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia  30097
770 242-2599
www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com, www.wnho.net
Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame 
 Sent by email, fax and certified snail mail

Caramel Coloring In Coke Causes Cancer

Posted by Myra on February 21, 2011 at 1:27 AM Comments comments (0)


Caramel Coloring In Coke Causes Cancer

Posted by majestic on February 18, 2011

A few days ago it was revealed that diet soda can trigger strokes in regular drinkers of the sweet fizzy beverages. Now the Center for Science in the Public Interest is petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prohibit what it says is carcinogenic “caramel coloring” (that is, not real caramel but synthetic, chemical “caramel”):

The “caramel coloring” used in Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other foods is contaminated with two cancer-causing chemicals and should be banned, according to a regulatory petition filed today by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In contrast to the caramel one might make at home by melting sugar in a saucepan, the artificial brown coloring in colas and some other products is made by reacting sugars with ammonia and sulfites under high pressure and temperatures. Chemical reactions result in the formation of 2-methylimidazole and 4 methylimidazole, which in government-conducted studies caused lung, liver, or thyroid cancer or leukemia in laboratory mice or rats.

The National Toxicology Program, the division of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences that conducted the animal studies, said that there is “clear evidence” that both 2-MI and 4-MI are animal carcinogens. Chemicals that cause cancer in animals are considered to pose cancer threats to humans. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, found significant levels of 4-MI in five brands of cola.

“Carcinogenic colorings have no place in the food supply, especially considering that their only function is a cosmetic one,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. “The FDA should act quickly to revoke its approval of caramel colorings made with ammonia.”

Federal regulations distinguish among four types of caramel coloring, two of which are produced with ammonia and two without it. CSPI wants the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the two made with ammonia. The type used in colas and other dark soft drinks is known as Caramel IV, or ammonia sulfite process caramel. Caramel III, which is produced with ammonia but not sulfites, is sometimes used in beer, soy sauce, and other foods.

Five prominent experts on animal carcinogenesis, including several who have worked at the National Toxicology Program, joined CSPI in calling on the FDA to bar the use of caramel colorings made with an ammonia process. “The American public should not be exposed to any cancer risk whatsoever as a result of consuming such chemicals, especially when they serve a non-essential, cosmetic purpose,” the scientists wrote in a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

CSPI also says the phrase “caramel coloring” is misleading when used to describe colorings made with ammonia or sulfite. The terms “ammonia process caramel” or “ammonia sulfite process caramel” would be more accurate, and companies should not be allowed to label any products that contain such colorings as “natural,” according to the group.

“Most people would interpret ‘caramel coloring’ to mean ‘colored with caramel,’ but this particular ingredient has little in common with ordinary caramel or caramel candy,” Jacobson said. “It’s a concentrated dark brown mixture of chemicals that simply does not occur in nature. Regular caramel isn’t healthful, but at least it is not tainted with carcinogens.”

In a little-noticed regulatory proceeding in California, state health officials have added 4 MI to the state’s list of “chemicals known to the state to cause cancer.”…

[continues at the Center for Science in the Public Interest]

Chemicals in Fast Food Wrappers Show Up in Human Blood

Posted by Myra on February 21, 2011 at 1:25 AM Comments comments (0)

Chemicals in Fast Food Wrappers Show Up in Human Blood

Posted by Good German on November 12, 2010


Microwave popcorn bad. Photo: Howcheng (CC)

Microwave popcorn bag. Photo: Howcheng (CC)

From Environment News Service:

Chemicals used to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags are migrating into food, being ingested by people and showing up as contaminants in blood, according to new research at the University of Toronto.

The contaminants are perfluoroalkyls, stable, synthetic chemicals that repel oil, grease, and water. They are used in surface protection products such as carpet and clothing treatments and coating for paper and cardboard packaging.

Earlier research by University of Toronto environmental chemists Scott Mabury and Jessica D’eon, established in 2007 that the wrappers are a source of these chemicals in human blood. Their new study shows that perfluorinated chemicals can migrate from wrappers into food.

The specific chemicals studied are polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, or PAPs, breakdown products of the perfluorinated carboxylic acids, or PFCAs, which are used in coating the food wrappers.

“We suspected that a major source of human PFCA exposure may be the consumption and metabolism of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters, or PAPs,” said D’eon, a graduate student in the University of Toronto’s Department of Chemistry.

“PAPs are applied as greaseproofing agents to paper food contact packaging such as fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags,” she explained.

In their latest study, D’eon and Mabury exposed rats to PAPs either orally or by injection and monitored for a three-week period to track the concentrations of the PAPs and PFCA metabolites in their blood.

The researchers used the PAP concentrations previously observed in human blood together with the PAP and PFCA concentrations observed in the rats to calculate human exposure to the chemical perflurooctanoic acid, PFOA.

“In this study we clearly demonstrate that the current use of PAPs in food contact applications does result in human exposure to PFCAs, including PFOA,” said Mabury, the lead researcher and a professor in the university’s Department of Chemistry.

Elevated levels of PFOA in blood have been associated with changes in sex hormones and cholesterol, according to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances. Exposure to PFOA also has resulted in early death and delayed development in mice and rat pups, the agency says.

Read more here.

60 Lab Studies Link Vaccine to Cancer

Posted by Myra on February 20, 2011 at 9:36 PM Comments comments (0)

Watch this video from the doctor who developed the Polio, MMR, and other vaccines for Merck. (Merck also makes flu shots)


So AIDS came from using wild monkeys who had been confined with and exposed to other species during transit to this country?  The AIDS virus was then part of polio and other vaccines children were given in the 1950’s, because they didn’t know how to strain out 40  (FORTY!!!) other viruses that also were included in vaccines of the day.  Of course, now they know better!!!  Yeah right!  And the CANCER virus is one of them that we, as children were all given!!!  So no wonder cancer is rampant today.  Recently, they are just discovered that cancer is a fungus…not a virus, so what was this virus that caused cancer back then????  And how did it cause it???  Hmmmmm. 


NO -- THEY HAVEN’T learned nearly enough to be creating and injecting foreign crap into my body!!!  who knows what stuff is still in there or being created and put into it today!!!   Step right up and get your Flu Shot! 


Here is the inside scoop from the article:

Dr. Maurice Hilleman made astounding revelations in an interview that was cut from The Health Century -- the admission that Merck drug company vaccines had been injecting dangerous viruses into people worldwide.

Bear in mind that Dr. Hilleman was the developer of Merck's vaccine program. He developed over three dozen vaccines, more than any other scientist in history. He was a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science, the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. He received a special lifetime achievement award from the World Health Organization. Hilleman was one of the early vaccine pioneers to warn about the possibility that simian viruses might contaminate vaccines.





Butter with Flame Retardants, Extent of Contamination Unknown

Posted by Myra on February 16, 2011 at 12:36 AM Comments comments (0)


Butter with Flame Retardants, Extent of Contamination Unknown

Sun Feb 13 2011 07:31
A study published December 7 ahead of print in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) reports what scientists believe is the worst documented U.S. case of food contamination with polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants. The incident also marks the first time food contamination has been thought to result from PBDEs in a food's packaging. One of ten samples of butter purchased at five Dallas grocery stores contained high concentrations of deca-BDE, a PBDE compound widely used in electronics as well as in textiles, wire and cable insulation, and automobile and airplane components. Animal studies have linked consumption of deca-BDE with thyroid hormone changes in adult rodents and neurobehavioral changes in young rodents. PBDE levels in the contaminated butter were more than 135 times higher than the average of the other nine samples; levels of BDE-209, the main component of deca-BDE, were more than 900 times higher. The contamination came to light during a routine investigation intended to help scientists improve estimates of the amount of PBDEs and other persistent organic pollutants people inadvertently consume in food. Scientists have detected low levels of these compounds in many fat-rich foods including fish such as salmon, meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products. Further investigation revealed the butter's paper wrapper had PBDE levels more than 16 times greater than levels in the butter itself. It is unclear whether the paper was contaminated before or after it reached the butter packaging plant, according to lead author Arnold Schecter of the University of Texas School of Public Health, Dallas Campus. The source of the contamination also is unclear. U.S. manufacturers have agreed to end all uses of deca-BDE by 2014, and the European Union phased it out in 2008. However, chemicals don't vanish from the environment just because they're phased out, Schecter says, and products containing deca-BDE often are used for many years. The authors of the paper agree their research underscores the need for a regulatory program that samples American food for persistent organic pollutants such as PBDEs. Schecter's coauthors include Sarah Smith and Noor Malik of the University of Texas School of Public Health, Dallas Campus; Justin Colacino of the University of Michigan School of Public Health; Matthias Opel and Olaf Paepke of the Eurofins GfA laboratory in Germany; and Linda Birnbaum of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health. The article is available at ehponline.org/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1002604. EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. EHP is an open-access journal, and all EHP content is available free online at www.ehponline.org/. Source:  National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Wash. State vaccine exemptions threatened

Posted by Myra on February 11, 2011 at 3:40 AM Comments comments (0)

Wash. State vaccine exemptions threatened


Please, PLEASE forward to all your contacts in Washington state.

From Dawn Winkler of Health Advocacy in the Public Interest and a co-director of NVIC Advocacy in Colorado    www.hapihealth.com

There are two bills in WA state that threaten the personal beliefs and religious exemptions. Both bills will mean that parents claiming a personal belief or religious exemption have to have a statement signed by a medical practitioner. Although the bills proposed allow state licensed naturopathic doctors to sign an exemption statement, the change would mean a paid visit to a naturopath for a non-medical exemption, in effect adding a "tax" to those choosing to forgo state mandated vaccines for school or daycare. This proposed law change will make it more difficult for parents making a conscientious choice to exempt their child/children from state mandates, and is just one more step in the direction of taking exemptions away. If we allow these bills to pass, we are allowing the state to tell us that we must have a state licensed doctor to back up our ability to make independent healthcare choices for our families. This will be a HUGE change to Washington State's exemption process.
SB5005 is going to the Senate floor for a second reading, but will then have to go to the House. There will be opportunity for public testimony in a committee hearing on that side.
HB1015 is sitting in the House Rules Committee. If it gets out, it will go to the Senate. And, again, there will be opportunity for public testimony in the committee hearing.
There was testimony in opposition at one committee hearing, but none in the other hearing. My understanding is that this is the THIRD year this bill has been attempted. It was killed the prior two years but some of the key people responsible are gone. We need to get people to start contacting their legislators and figure out who might be able to go testify. These bills will make it through if there is no public testimony in opposition when they go through committee hearings again.
I will put together the necessary information and get it on the NVIC's state portal, but in the meantime I am putting feelers out for those who are willing and able to testify in Olympia; no hearing dates have been set. There is a chance to kill HB1015 in Rules committee right now if enough people can call those members. That would be ideal so that it won't make it over to the Senate. Then there would only be one bill to fight instead of two.
This is the House Rules Committee List. Here's the link http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/RUL/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx
Representative Room Phone
Chopp, Frank (D) Chair LEG 339C (360) 786-7920
DeBolt, Richard (R) * LEG 335C (360) 786-7896
Angel, Jan (R) MOD A 105 (360) 786-7964
Armstrong, Mike (R) LEG 425B (360) 786-7832
Dahlquist, Cathy (R) MOD D 203 (360) 786-7846
Eddy, Deb (D) LEG 132D (360) 786-7848
Frockt, David (D) MOD D 104 (360) 786-7886
Goodman, Roger (D) MOD E 101 (360) 786-7878
Green, Tami (D) LEG 122H (360) 786-7958
Johnson, Norm (R) MOD G 103 (360) 786-7810
Kelley, Troy (D) MOD D 106 (360) 786-7890
Kretz, Joel (R) LEG 335A (360) 786-7988
Maxwell, Marcie (D) MOD D 103 (360) 786-7894
Moeller, Jim (D) LEG 429B (360) 786-7872
Orwall, Tina (D) MOD E 201 (360) 786-7834
Pettigrew, Eric (D) LEG 434B (360) 786-7838
Probst, Tim (D) MOD E 103 (360) 786-7994
Rivers, Ann (R) MOD A 203 (360) 786-7850
Ryu, Cindy (D) MOD F 106 (360) 786-7880
Schmick, Joe (R) MOD A 103 (360) 786-7844
Short, Shelly (R) MOD A 204 (360) 786-7908
Springer, Larry (D) LEG 132E (360) 786-7822
Sullivan, Pat (D) LEG 339A (360) 786-7858
Van De Wege, Kevin (D) LEG 434A (360) 786-7916
Warnick, Judy (R) MOD C 201 (360) 786-7932


In Health and Liberty,
Dawn Winkler
Executive Director
Health Advocacy in the Public Interest (HAPI)
[email protected]
In the Spirit of Truth,

Ingri Cassel, director
Vaccination Liberation
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
(888) 249-1421 / (208) 255-2307


“Free Your Mind...
From the Vaccine Paradigm”

“When we give government the power
to make medical decisions for us,
we, in essence, accept that the state
owns our bodies.”
~U.S. Representative Ron Paul, MD

To begin your journey on learning about vaccines, the biomedical paradigm and why the only truly informed choice regarding vaccines is complete avoidance and refusal, we offer you the following weblink to well-footnoted articles and resources.

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath   
Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA
Vaccines - http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com
Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes start February 4

Processed and GRATED cheese contain sodium ALUMINUM phosphate!

Posted by Myra on February 9, 2011 at 4:33 PM Comments comments (0)
Is aluminum phosphate safe for human consumption?


Prior theories regarding the causes like the accumulation of aluminum, lead, mercury, and other substances in the brain leading to Alzheimer's and Dementia are unbelievable to many in the medical field. They believe that twisted fragments of protein within nerve cells or abnormal clusters of dead and dying nerve cells, and protein clog up the cell. The destruction of nerve cells leads to the decrease in substances secreted by neurons that send messages to other neurons and this appears to disconnect areas of the brain that normally work together.

Only 4 parts per million of aluminum in human blood causes it to coagulate. This will slow down or completely shut off the flow of blood in smaller vessels. The brain cells will die without blood flow and oxygen.

Some toxic metals like aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and nickel are taken into our bodies through the air, food, and water. The toxins from these metals remain in our bodies for years and have been linked to Alzheimer's disease, aluminum toxicity or mercury poisoning.

Aluminum toxicity and its symptoms mimic those of Alzheimer's disease and osteoporosis. Colic, rickets, gastrointestinal problems, interference with the metabolism of calcium, extreme nervousness, anemia, headaches, decreased liver and kidney function, memory loss, speech problems, softening of the bones, and aching muscles.

Drugs, Foods, Products With Aluminum Risk Factors

Antacids contain aluminum hydroxide. Anti-diarrhea products may contain aluminum salts and aluminum magnesium silicate. Antiperspirants and deodorants contain aluminum chloride or chlorhydrate. Baking powers contain aluminum sulfate or sodium aluminum sulfate. Bleached flour contains potassium alum. Buffered aspirin contains aluminum hydroxide or aluminum glycinate.

Canned goods, cooking utensils, deodorants, douches may contain aluminum salts. Containers, aluminum coated waxed containers, used especially for orange and pineapple juices, cause juices inside to absorb aluminum. Beer and soft drinks that are stored in aluminum cans also absorb small quantities of aluminum.

Food additives in cake mixes, frozen dough, self-rising flour contains sodium aluminum phosphate. Food starch modifiers and anti caking agents also contain varying levels of aluminum compounds.

Processed and grated cheese contain sodium aluminum phosphate. Shampoos, anti-dandruff contain magnesium aluminum silicate. Other shampoos may contain aluminum lauryl sulfate. Table salt contains aluminum calcium silicate. Tarter sauce, tobacco smoke may also have high levels.

Eye drops used for the treatment of glaucoma and increased pressure in the eye contain mono-basic and dibasic sodium phosphate and sodium hydroxide in buffered water solution. Aluminum hydroxide is used as the gelatinous flocking agent to filter out particulates in the water. Aluminum hydroxide is prepared at the treatment plant from aluminum sulfate by reaction with the sodium hydroxide.

One process of producing the sodium hydroxide is the mercury cell process where the sodium metal forms as an amalgam at the mercury cathode and the sodium is then reacted with water to produce the sodium hydroxide. The sodium hydroxide goes by other names like Lye and Caustic Soda and also used in detergents, drinking water, food preparation in washing fruits vegetables, washing hominy, pepper, gelling of egg whites, pretzels, pulp and paper, textiles, toothpastes, soaps, tissue digestion or decomposing, and unblocking drains.

Food in aluminum cans, foils or containers may have trace amounts. Pancake mixes, and grains may contain aluminum. Pickling salts for pickles or maraschino cherries can contain aluminum ammonium sulfate and aluminum potassium sulfate.

Vaccines that contain aluminum hydroxide are used as an absorbing agent in many vaccines and hypo-sensitization preparations causes hypersensitivity reactions. Aluminum may also be used in allergy testing, intravenous solutions, allergens, wound and antacid irrigation, ulcer treatment, blood oxygenation, bone or joint replacement and burn treatment.

Municipal water supplies are treated with both aluminum sulfate and aluminum fluoride. The role of aluminum from toothpastes with sodium fluoride may be even just as important than the drinking water. Use baking soda for an alternative.

Most of these types of aluminum will be found in ground water and toxic to aquatic life: aluminum acetate, aluminum bicarbonate, aluminum caprylate, aluminum chloride, aluminum diacetate, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum oxide, aluminum sulfate, Poly-oxo aluminum stearate, and Sodium aluminum phosphate are found in pesticides and herbicides.

Aluminum has been exempted from testing for safety by the FDA under some convoluted logic wherein it is classified as GRAS. (Generally Regarded As Safe.) It has never been tested by the FDA on its safety and there are NO restrictions whatever on the amount or use of aluminum.

Mercury is the most toxic element among the risk factors that causes damage to our bodies. It is found in shellfish and some fish. It is used in dental amalgam fillings, bactericides, fungicides, paint, thermometers and vaccines. Mercury can cause changes in the lymphoid tissue; it effects the immune system, nervous system, kidneys, and it produces resistance to antibiotics. Mercury is extremely toxic and poisonous to our bodies. Symptoms of mercury toxicity include fatigue, indigestion, muscle and joint weakness, nervousness, depression, or weight loss. Mercury poisoning has been linked to Alzheimer's, Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's Disease

Read more: http://wiki.answers.c/Q/Is_aluminium_phosphate_safe_for_human_consumption#ixzz1DRgLy5Us

Proof of heavy mineral saturation and the effects or heavy metals:

Posted by Myra on February 8, 2011 at 3:14 AM

Proof of heavy mineral saturation and the effects or heavy metals:

Mystery Crop Damage : First Sings of Hydrogen Sulfide Rains from Gulf?
"The E.P.A. recently confirmed high levels of Hydrogen Sulfide, Benzene, and Methylene Chloride present in the air in gulf area. The recent tested levels of Hydrogen Sulfide is as high as 1200 P.P.B., accepted levels by E.P.A. 5 to 10 P.P.B. (Makes you wonder why the cleanup effort is going so slow and people are getting sick)" 

What sort of connection is this?
Killer fungus is no mystery to Afghan poppy growers
"The strains of the fungi fusarium oxysporum and pleospora papveracae might infect and kill plants other than coca, poppy and cannabis in ecologically sensitive areas of Asia and the Americas." 

Strange Fungi detected seemingly - World Wide
Airborne fungus Ug99 threatens global wheat harvest
"Ug99 — so called because it was first seen in Uganda in 1999 — is a new variety of an old crop disease called “stem rust”, which has already spread on the wind from Africa to Iran. It is particularly alarming because it can infect crops in just a few hours and vast clouds of invisible spores can be carried by the wind for hundreds of miles." 

More signs of a Fungal epidemic
A Question, What will the Corexit/Oil Disaster do to this new strain?

Mystery fungus makes bees buzz off
"Jun 02, 2010 2:12 PM PDT
LAWTON, Okla. - Honeybees are losing their way, literally. Some are leaving their hives and then cannot find their way back. Scientists say a fungus is to blame." 

The Newest Dangerous Sweetener to Hit Your Food Shelves

Posted by Myra on February 8, 2011 at 2:30 AM Comments comments (0)

The Newest Dangerous Sweetener to Hit Your Food Shelves...

Posted By Dr. Mercola |

By Dr. Mercola

Since 2002 an artificial sweetener called neotame has been approved for use in food and drink products around the world, although so far its use appears to be very limited.

Neotame is a chemical derivative of aspartame, and judging by the chemicals used in its manufacturing, it appears even more toxic than aspartame, although the proponents of neotame claim that increased toxicity is not a concern, because less of it is needed to achieve the desired effect.

Neotame is bad science brought to you by the Monsanto Company.

If Monsano truly had nothing to fear with either of these artificial chemical sweeteners, they would have funded rigorous independent testing for safety. To date they have not, and they won't, because virtually every independent analysis of aspartame not conducted by Monsanto partners has revealed a long list of disturbing side effects, mostly neurological in nature.

Monsanto also has now sold the NutraSweet Company to someone else, but the approval of neotame came under Monsanto's ownership, and was most likely a result of Monsanto's cozy relationship with the FDA. More about that in a minute.

My recommendation for neotame is the same as that for aspartame, which is: it should be avoided if you care about your health.

Why is Neotame Dangerous?

Hopefully by now you are aware of the dangers of aspartame, if you aren't, please review this previous article.

But as if aspartame wasn't bad enough, NutraSweet (a Monsanto subsidiary at the time of neotame's approval) "improved" the aspartame formula, making neotame 7,000-13,000 times sweeter than sugar (sucrose) and 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.

How did they do this?

In 1998, Monsanto applied for FDA approval for neotame, "based on the aspartame formula" with one critical addition: 3-dimethylbutyl, which just happens to be listed on the EPA's most hazardous chemical list.

So not only is neotame potentially more devastating to your health than aspartame, it is also approved for use in a wider array of food products, including baked goods, because it is more stable at higher temperatures.

What is 3-Dimethylbutyl?

Neotame is manufactured by combining aspartame with 3,3-dimethylbutyraldehyd, which was added to block enzymes that break the peptide bond between aspartic acid and phenylalanine, thereby reducing the availability of phenylalanine.

This eliminates the need for a warning on labels directed at people who cannot properly metabolize phenylalanine.

However, 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde is categorized as both highly flammable and an irritant, andcarries risk statements for handling including irritating to skin, eyes and respiratory system.

In other words, the NutraSweet company assures you that neotame is perfectly safe, while at the same time they manufacture neotame through a chemical reaction between aspartame and a substance that is highly flammable and a skin, eye and respiratory irritant (that must be handled with extreme caution by anyone involved in the manufacturing process).

Does this sound like something you want to put into your body?

Why are These Chemicals Approved for Human Consumption?

Many people actually consider the FDA to be a "subsidiary" of the Monsanto Company. It sounds impossible, but when you look at all the Monsanto executives who have gone through the revolving door between private industry and government oversight, a truly disturbing picture emerges of the foxes guarding the henhouse..

The FDA is packed by pro-business, pro-corporation advocates who often have massive conflicts of interest when it comes to protecting the health of the public.

In fact, the revolving door between private industry and government oversight agencies is so well established these days, it has become business as usual to read about scandal, conflicts of interest and blatant pro-industry bias, even when it flies in the face of science or the law.

A few examples include:

Why Aspartame and Neotame are NOT a Dieters Best Friend

On of the biggest marketing and PR tactics for man-made chemical sweeteners has been the claim that they help in the battle against obesity. Folks, they don't. They never have and they never will.

The research and the epidemiologic data suggest the opposite is true, and that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and neotame tend to lead to weight gain. As I've often said, there's more to weight gain or weight loss than mere calorie intake.

One reason for aspartame and neotame's potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame and are also present in neotame -- are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage.

Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism.

So although you're not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame and neotame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.

Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to it, just as your body can become resistant to insulin, and once that happens, your body can no longer "hear" the hormonal messages instructing your body to stop eating, burn fat, and maintain good sensitivity to sweet tastes in your taste buds.

What happens then?

You remain hungry; you crave sweets, and your body stores more fat.

Leptin-resistance also causes an increase in visceral fat, sending you on a vicious cycle of hunger, fat storage and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and more.

The Real Reason Artificial Sweetener Use Has Exploded

If you want some answers in scenarios like this it is typically useful to follow the money trail. Aspartame currently has the largest market share of all artificial sweeteners, and the people at NutraSweet would like to keep it that way.

Artificial sweeteners cost a great deal less than real sugar, corn syrup or molasses, so the processed food and beverage industry saves money by using LESS of these man-made chemicals to create MORE sweetness in their products.

Neotame is manufactured from aspartame, and builds on aspartame's ability to provide more sweetness from less raw material, as it is 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.

Unfortunately, one byproduct your body creates by breaking down aspartame is formaldehyde, which is extremely toxic to your health even in very small doses. The NutraSweet Company claims the addition of 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde to aspartame makes it more stable at higher temperatures, and reduces the availability of phenylalanine. But nowhere do they discuss the formation of formaldehyde when your body breaks down aspartame, which is the main ingredient of neotame.

In a search of pubmed.gov, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which has over 11 million medical citations, neotame returns zero double-blind scientific studies on toxicity in humans or animals.

If neotame was indeed completely safe to ingest, you would think the NutraSweet Company would have published at least one double-blind safety study in the public domain? They haven't.

You have to ask yourself "why not?"

Have You Experienced a Bad Aspartame or Neotame Reaction? Be Heard!

Did you know that only a fraction of all adverse food reactions are ever reported to the FDA? This is a problem that only you as the consumer can have an impact upon.

In order to truly alert the FDA to a problem with a product they've approved, they must be notified – by as many people as possible who believe they have experienced a side effect. This mean you can take action against the manufacturers of these chemicals that continue to put your optimal health at risk, if you feel you have had a bad reaction to their product.

I urge you, if you believe you have experienced side effects from aspartame or neotame, let the FDA know about it!

Please go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number listed for your state, and report your adverse reaction.

There's no telling just how many reports they might need before considering taking another look at the safety of aspartame or neotame, but the only way to press them is by reporting any and all adverse effects!

And in the meantime, do your health and the health of your family a favor and treat all foods and drinks that contain aspartame or neotame as if they were deleterious to your optimal health. Because, in my opinion, they are.