Being a couch potato may be as deadly as smoking a cigarette. It is National Diabetes Awareness Month and the latest statistics should turn awareness into alarm. In the United States, diabetes is the sixth leading official cause of death. Diabetes may soon pass smoking as a preventable killer.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/111605HA.shtml


http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Diabetes

Journalist 11/2005, S. 35 f.

Vormarsch der Killer-Enten

Fakten-Recherche zu Horrormeldungen

Schenkt man manchen Medien Glauben, so wird die Welt in naher Zukunft von einer Epidemie heimgesucht, ausgelöst durch Mutation eines Vogelgrippevirus mit dem faszinierend-schaurigen Namen H5N1. Auf welchen Fakten basieren die Horrormeldungen? Eine kleine Recherche.

Von Torsten Engelbrecht, David Crowe und Jim West

Schon auf Seite 1 lesen wir in der "Zeit" mit Schaudern: "Der Tod auf leisen Schwingen - die Vogelgrippe ist im Anmarsch." Weiter ist vom "bevorstehenden Angriff der Killerenten" zu lesen, und als gehe es darum, den Titel für den zweiten Teil des Hollywood-Schockers "Outbreak" zu kreieren, schreibt das Wochenblatt: "H5N1 spielt Blitzkrieg". Der "Spiegel" beruft sich derweil auf Aussagen von David Nabarro, im September zum UN-Chefkoordinator im Kampf gegen die Vogelgrippe ernannt: "Jeden Moment kann eine neue Grippe-Pandemie ausbrechen - und bis zu 150 Millionen Menschen töten." Das "Foreign-Policy-Journal" zitiert einen Experten der US-Seuchenbehörde CDC, der die Todesziffer flott auf 360 Millionen erhöht. Reinhard Kurth, Leiter des Robert-Koch-Instituts, ist mit seinem Interview mit der FAZ nicht mehr zu toppen: "Eine Pandemie bedroht potenziell alle sechs Milliarden Menschen."

Bei so viel medial vermittelter Weltuntergangsstimmung muss allemal die Frage nach den Fakten gestattet sein: Sind die Warnungen durch wissenschaftliche Daten gedeckt? Gibt es unabhängige Studien, die beweisen, dass das H5N1-Virus existiert, dass es bei Tieren (hochgradig) pathogen ist, dass es auf den Menschen überspringen und eine Pandemie auslösen kann? Gibt es einwandfreie Beweise dafür, dass andere Faktoren (Umweltgifte, Fremdeiweiße etc.) als Ursache für die Erkrankung der Vögel ausgeschlossen werden können?

Die Medien selber haben keine derartigen Beweise parat. Darauf deutet nicht nur die sehr hohe Zahl an Experten hin, die bei ihnen zu Wort kommen. Eine Nachfrage bei verschiedenen Printmedien bleibt ergebnislos, aus der "Zeit" heißt es lediglich: "Alle Primär-Quellen sind über DIMDI oder Pubmed leicht recherchierbar und dann über Subito zu bestellen. Experten zum Beispiel im Robert-Koch-Institut oder der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Virus-Krankheiten in Riems sind für Fragen von jedem Journalisten offen. Und auch die einschlägigen CDC und WHO-Publikationen sind frei zugänglich." Der "Zeit" selbst liegen also keine konkreten Studien vor; statt dessen vertraut sie - wie im Wissenschaftsjournalismus üblich - den Aussagen der Medizin-Autoritäten.

Zeitbombe. Die jedenfalls, wird angenommen, haben ihre Aussagen wissenschaftlich untermauert. So geht das Verbraucherschutzministerium zusammen mit entsprechenden Behörden in den USA, Kanada oder Frankreich und mit den Verantwortlichen bei der Weltgesundheitsbehörde WHO fest davon aus, dass H5N1 ein "hoch pathogenes und hoch ansteckendes" Virus ist - "eine Zeitbombe, die nur darauf wartet, gezündet zu werden", wie es Anthony Fauci, Leiter der US-Behörde National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases und graue Eminenz der amerikanischen Virus-Wissenschaft, formuliert.

Die Fragen an das Bundesverbraucherschutzministerium lösen zunächst folgende Antwort aus: "Sie fragen sehr spezielle Sachverhalte an, die das Ministerium - dafür bitte ich um Verständnis - gegenwärtig nicht so schnell beantworten kann, wie das für Ihre Recherche notwendig wäre." Auf unseren Hinweis, dass wir durchaus Zeit hätten und nur gerne wissen würden, bis wann wir mit einer Antwort rechnen könnten, reagiert das Ministerium dann aber mit Verweis auf die wissenschaftlichen Instanzen: "Ihre Fragen nach Belegen für die Pathogenität beziehungsweise Pandemiefähigkeit des H5N1-Virus und den Studien, die dies belegen, können Ihnen nur die Experten beim Robert-Koch-Institut und beim Friedrich-Löffler-Institut beantworten."

Das Friedrich-Löffler-Institut (FLI), das laut Verbraucherschutzministerium sogar "über Virus isolate von H5N1 verfügt", schickt als Antwort vier Studien, veröffentlicht in amerikanischen Fachmagazinen. Die behandeln zwar Pathogenität und Pandemiefähigkeit, gehen jedoch nicht darauf ein, ob nicht andere Faktoren wie Toxine als Ursache für die Erkrankung der Tiere in Frage kommen. Und bezüglich der Pandemiegefahr konzediert das FLI, "… dass es derzeit keine wissenschaftliche Methode mit Vorhersagewirkung gibt, die die Möglichkeit, dass ein Influenzavirus eine neue Pandemie induziert, bewerten könnte".

Das Interessanteste: Nicht einmal zur Existenz und Pathogenität von H5N1 liefern die vom FLI präsentierten Untersuchungen wirklich Substanzielles. Wenn ein Virus existiert, das eine derartige Krankheit auslösen kann, muss es auffindbar sein - im Fachjargon: Es muss "reines" Virusmaterial vorliegen. Doch genau das ist bisher anscheinend nicht der Fall.

Wenn aber die Existenz, die Pathogenität und das Pandemie-Potenzial von H5N1 unbewiesen ist und nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann, dass andere Faktoren die Vögel krank gemacht haben, dann fehlt die Voraussetzung für mögliche Folgerungen. Die "Zeit" fordert zwar: "Es ist höchste Zeit, dass Deutschland genügend Medikamente kauft", schränkt aber zugleich ein: "Die antiviralen Mittel verhindern die Erkrankung zwar nicht, sie mildern aber den Verlauf." Das stimmt nach Auffassung der etablierten Medizin; generell aber ist nicht einmal sicher, dass die Medikamente - im Mittelpunkt steht hier das Präparat Tamiflu (Oseltamivir) - den Krankheitsverlauf "mildern". Zwar gibt es Studien, die diese Auffassung stützen. Doch welche Aussagekraft haben sie, wenn nicht gewährleistet werden kann, dass sie frei von Interessenskonflikten sind?

Referenz-Krankheit. Oft wird die so genannte "spanische Grippe" von 1918/19 quasi als Referenz für die H5N1-Panik ins Spiel gebracht. Auch hier beruft man sich auf Expertenäußerungen und auf Studien, veröffentlicht etwa in "Science". Doch wer bei der "Spanischen Grippe" vorschnell annimmt, dass sie durch ein einziges Virus hervorgerufen wurde und dass sie allein für den Tod von 25 bis 50 Millionen Menschen verantwortlich gemacht werden kann, macht es sich zu leicht. Fakten für eine solche These gibt es jedenfalls nicht.

Zudem ereignete sich das Massensterben am Ende des Ersten Weltkrieges - zu einer Zeit also, als unzählige Menschen nach vier Kriegsjahren ausgelaugt, unterernährt und gestresst waren. Zudem enthielten Medikamente damals hochgiftige Substanzen wie Schwermetalle, Arsen, Formaldehyde oder Chloroform, die schwere Grippesymptome auslösen können. Und zahlreiche für die militärische Anwendung gedachte Chemikalien wanderten damals unkontrolliert in den zivilen Sektor (Landwirtschaft, Medizin).

Fest in Sachen Vogelgrippe steht lediglich, dass, wie Reuters am 20. Juli 2005 meldet, die im Zuge der H5N1-Panik eingeleitete "weltweite Grippe-Vorsorge" dem Tamiflu-Hersteller "Roche einen Gewinnsprung beschert" hat. Genauer: Die globalen "Tamiflu-Verkäufe stiegen im ersten Halbjahr um 363 Prozent auf 580 Mio. Franken" - auch dank deutscher Steuergelder. Allein NRW hat, wie der "Zeit" zu entnehmen ist, "im Juli angekündigt, für 30 Millionen Euro Medikamente einzulagern".


Treffer. Doch welche Redaktion hat nachgeprüft, ob die Studien zu Tamiflu frei von Interessenkonflikten und de facto aussagekräftig sind? Dem Internet lässt sich leicht entnehmen, ob Roche Tamiflu- bzw. Oseltamivir-Studien finanziert: Suchbegriffe wie "Roche funded pubmed Oseltamivir" ergeben stolze 128 Treffer.

Nichts Außergewöhnliches: Erst kürzlich stellte das britische Parlament in einer umfassenden Untersuchung fest, dass drei Viertel jener klinischen Studien, die in führenden Wissenschaftsmagazinen veröffentlicht werden, von Pharmafirmen finanziert werden. Die Fachzeitschrift "New England Journal of Medicine" (NEJM) hat 2002 die Richtlinien für Autoren so abgeändert, dass Übersichtsartikel und Editorials auch von Experten geschrieben werden dürfen, die Dritthonorare von bis zu 10.000 Dollar pro Jahr kassieren - wobei diese Honorare durchaus auch von Firmen stammen dürfen, deren Produkte in dem betreffenden Artikel genannt sind.

Als wesentlichen Grund für die Änderung der Autoren-Richtlinien nannte das NEJM, dass man sich schlicht nicht mehr in der Lage sehe, genügend Top-Experten zu finden, die keine finanziellen Verbindungen zur Pharmaindustrie haben.


Torsten Engelbrecht, David Crowe und Jim West arbeiten als Wissenschaftsjournalisten in Hamburg, New York und Calgary/Kanada

http://www.djv.de/magazin/vorschau.shtml


http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=betrayal

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_115.shtml

MYCOPLASMA
The Linking Pathogen in Neurosystemic Diseases
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/mycoplasma.html


Informant: friends2b

Please Network.

Will people now realise that they have a legitimate claim against the UK government for deliberately poisoning their citizens. There are 6 million people in the UK alone, who have been subjected to contaminated drinking water with hexafluorosilicic acid for 60 years! Will anyone be held accountable?!

- namaste publishing -

----- Original Message -----
kings1955
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:04 PM
Subject: Fluoridation is now illegal in UK - New EU legislation comes into force

Press Release

Nov 1st 2005

NAMAF - North and Midlands Against Fluoridation & The National Register of Children with Dental Fluorosis

Fluoridation in UK is now illegal

1st November 2005

New EU legislation - DIRECTIVE 2004/27/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC (see 9 below) has an impact on all existing fluoridation schemes which currently affect 6 million people in the UK who are forced to drink, cook with and bathe in fluoridated water. l All ingestible substances are either foods or medicines, when fluoride - in ANY form - is added to water with the intent to medicate then that water becomes a medicine, and must comply with the regulations relating to the registration, licensing, sale and administration of medicines.

This is now an absolute requirement, and enforceable under EU legislation, the UK Government's dispensation for silicofluorides to be used to medicate dental caries is without substance.

Douglas Cross - Environmental Analyst - EurProBiol,CBiol,MIBiol,BSc also comments

"From 31st October '05 it will be illegal to to use silicofluorides with the intent to medicate. Nomination of silicofluorides by the UK government for fluoridation does not constitute the issue of a marketing authorisation which is mandatory for any substance used with the intent of treating or preventing any medical condition."

Professor Vyvyan Howard, toxico-pathologist in the Centre for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Ulster said “I am glad that there now appears to be a legal framework to test the dubious practice of mass medication via the water supply. There are so many unanswered questions relating to the addition of hexafluorosilicic acid to the water supply, particularly to the unborn and infants, that it is my personal and professional opinion that the practice should cease until the basic toxicological research required has been performed”.

Cllr. Susan King - Secretary of NAMAF is delighted that the new EC legislation will bring to an end the deliberate pollution of water supplies with hexafluorosilicic acid at the rate of 1 part per million. For the last 60 years fluoride has been condoned as the 'protected pollutant' with unknown effects on our general health and the health of the environment.

She added

'There is now compelling evidence from the US that fluorides are carcinogenic linking them with bone cancer affecting young males. Water suppliers are not pharmacists! Its totally unacceptable to add a known cumulative protoplasmic poison to our tapwater. The fluoride dosing equipment must be switched off now!'

For more information please contact:

Cllr. Susan King - Secretary NAMAF Mobile Tel: (07976) 25536444 (0)1455) 828778 e mail: kings1955@aol.com or Margaret Cooper - Co-ordinator National Register of Children with Dental Fluorosis Mobile Tel: (07930) 810630 or Tel: 44 (0115) 9526548

Notes for Editors

1) Press release on first Consumer Council for Water meeting - Birmingham Nov 1st 2005
http://www2.watervoice.org.uk/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/Content/ccwater605

Water supplies top the agenda at first CC Water meeting in public

2) DWI - Press release on formation of Consumer Council for Water - CCWater (replacing Water Voice)
http://www.dwi.gov.uk/consumer/ccwater.shtm

3) Doug Cross - analysis of implications of Codified Pharmaceutical Directive in relation to EC definition of a food.

The medicinal regulations are essentially unchanged from the wording of the 2001 Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive. However, the Food Directive has more recently been updated, and now provides additional confirmation of the status of 'normal' drinking water, and therefore of fluoridated water as a medicine. Remember, any ingestible substance is either a food or a medicine.

Note the use of the phrase 'Water is ingested directly or indirectly like other foods,' in section 6 of the Preamble. This is also saying that water is a food, like any other. The key ruling is the European Court of Justice's decision that the intent to medicate renders any chemical so used a medicinal substance.

'REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 28 January2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety'.

Article 2 Definition of ‘food’ For the purposes of this Regulation, ‘food’ (or ‘foodstuff’) means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. ‘Food’ includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, reparation or treatment. It includes water after the point of compliance as defined in Article 6 of Directive 98/83/EC and without prejudice to the requirements of Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC.

Preamble (6) Water is ingested directly or indirectly like other foods, thereby contributing to the overall exposure of a consumer to ingested substances, including chemical and microbiological contaminants. However, as the quality of water intended for human consumption is already controlled by Council Directives 80/778/EEC (5) and 98/83/EC (6), it suffices to consider water after the point of compliance referred to in Article 6 of Directive 98/83/EC.

So, the quality of drinking water is covered by the EU food and water regulations as long as it does not contain any substance added with the intent to medicate any medical condition. Therefore, the presence of calcium fluoride in drinking water, as long as it is derived from natural sources, does not alter the status of drinking water as a food whose quality is regulated under the Water Quality Regulations.

However, immediately any form of fluoride, whether 'natural' or artificial, and including those fluorides that do have medicinal Marketing Authorisations, is added to water with the intent to prevent or reduce dental caries, that water ceases to be a food and becomes a medicine.

Neither authorized fluorides (potassium and sodium fluoride) nor any form of silicofluoride have Marketing Authorizations under the EU or UK legislations. Their use with the intent to medicate is therefore illegal - and absolutely so - from the end of this month.

So any authority faced with this illegal administration of an unlicensed medicine as from that date can, and should, apply for an injunction against any water company actively fluoridating its product, or proposing to do so. This action can also be taken against any Strategic Health Authority proposing to order a water company to carry out this illegal act.

4) Latest news on Water Fluoridation - including fluoride/bone cancer link

http://www.fluoridealert.org

Fluoride Action Network - Prof Paul Connett - Chemistry Dept, St Lawrence University, New York

5) TIME MAGAZINE Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118379,00.html

Not in My Water Supply

It hardens teeth and prevents cavities, but 60 years after it began, fluoridation is meeting new resistance

By MARGOT ROOSEVELT / BELLINGHAM

6) British Fluoridation Society http://www.bfsweb.org/

7) British Dental Association http://www.bda-dentistry.org.uk/ - see Fluoride links page for details of how to find York Review on Water Fluoridation, Medical Research Council report on water fluoridation etc

8) Fluoride Helpline - Manchester
http://www.fluorideinformation.com

9) DIRECTIVE 2004/27/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use Article 1 Directive 2001/83/EC is hereby amended as follows:
1) Article 1 shall be amended as follows:

(b) point 2 shall be replaced by the following:

‘2. Medicinal product:
(a) Any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings; or

(b) Any substance or combination of substances which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis.’


From ECOTERRA Intl.

Die moderne Intensivhaltung zieht Tiere unter extrem unnatürlichen Bedingungen auf; die Tiere stehen in überfüllten Hallen in ihrem eigenen Dreck und atmen verseuchte Luft. Es erstaunt daher wenig, dass sich hier eine wesentliche Keimzelle für den Ausbruch tödlicher Krankheiten findet wie z.B. SARS, Maul- und Klauenseuche, Rinderwahnsinn, Johnes Virus und nun die gefährlichste von allen: Vogelgrippe...

http://www.goveggie.de/vogelgrippe.php

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-11/forum.html#anyd

Any exposure to radiation may cause cell damage that could lead to cancer, according to a June 2005 report from the National Research Council. The risk noted by the report, though small, is a third higher than the risk of 8.46 cancers per 10,000 people exposed to 1 rem (or 10 millisieverts [mSv]) currently used by U.S. regulators. The report contradicts critics who believe there is a threshold below which radiation is harmless; it also fails to support those who say low doses of radiation cause greater health damage per unit dose than high levels.

The seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) report, sponsored by several federal agencies, assessed and updated the health risks from low linear energy transfer (low-LET) radiation, which deposits little energy in a cell and thus tends to cause little damage.The last BEIR report that addressed these health risks was published in 1990.

Richard Monson, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and chair of the group that conducted the study, says, "We judged that the most reasonable shape is a line through the origin." Simply put, this means any low-LET ionizing radiation may increase the risk of a cell becoming cancerous--there is no threshold below which there is no risk--and as exposure increases, so does the health risk. Researchers refer to this straight line as the linear-no-threshold model.

Less than 20% of people's low-level radiation exposure comes from anthropogenic sources. The Earth and cosmic sources emit the remainder. Nearly 80% of human-induced exposure comes from medical procedures, about 15% from products like tobacco and building materials, and around 5% from exposure at work.

For the purpose of the BEIR VII report, the authoring committee defined low-LET radiation as levels up to about 100 mSv. For comparison, a chest X ray averages around 0.1 mSv. The committee concluded it's likely that about 1 out of 100 people would develop a tumor or leukemia from exposure to 100 mSv above background. Of that same 100 people, experts would expect 42 to develop cancers for other reasons, but at the press conference marking the release of the report, the committee said it did not fully exclude the possibility of some radiation exposure being a factor in those cases.

The BEIR VII report employed statistical data to draw its conclusions and reviewed studies of people exposed at work and in medical settings. It also relied heavily on data from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

As these survivors age, more is revealed about the relationship between radiation exposure and eventual health outcomes. Investigators have also improved their estimate of the levels of exposure this population received. But critics question the heavy reliance on the Japanese survivors because of the "healthy survivor" effect--those who survived the bombing might have been hardier than those who died early on, potentially skewing the results.

Many researchers say the latest report helps reaffirm the general accuracy of federal standards in place for limiting health risks from low-level radiation. "We believe the data are more convincing than fifteen years ago and show that the radiation protection standards we use are reasonable," says Monson.

Mike Boyd, a health physicist who works on setting and updating those standards for the Environmental Protection Agency, concurs. "I don't think we'll be changing any federal standards," he says. "I'm not willing to say there will be no impact. This report will go into our estimation of risk and could lead to refinements, but generally standards should stay the same."

Although most scientists agree the report incorporated the majority of pertinent data up through 2003, information about low-LET radiation continues to emerge. One hypothesis under investigation, says biologist Andrew Wyrobek of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is the possible adaptive response cells developed over eons of natural exposure. Other hypotheses include genetic instability (the idea that some cells already have genetic mutations and are thus more prone to becoming cancerous, given the incentive) and the "bystander effect" (in which cells respond adversely to nearby irradiation although they themselves weren't hit directly). These concepts were among those reviewed for the BEIR VII report but were not incorporated into the risk estimates.

Most experts agree that the BEIR VII report won't be the last in the series. "Right now there is just a lot we don't know about how cells react to very low doses of radiation," says Wyrobek. "But with multiple exposures from more and more people undergoing medical diagnostics in the low-dose range, and increased amounts of radioactive waste, it's important to understand these ranges better." Says Boyd, "I will be excited to see some future academy report after we find out more about how radiation affects cells at very low doses."

Sarah Todd Davidson


Informant: binstock

by Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Bettym19@mindspring.com
10-30-5

In July famous Italian scientists made world news by reporting an impeccable three-year study on aspartame proving it causes malignant brain tumors, lymphoma, and leukemia. In Sept they added kidney cancer and cancer of the cranial peripheral nerves. Next the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board granted Stephen Fox's request to convene a five day hearing to consider banning this poison from the state. The full week hearing is scheduled for July.

The folks at Merisant have cranked up the smoke machine to convince us the Italian doctors are morons, though congressional testimony, scientific studies and scores of renowned MD's have said the same thing for years. An anonymous editorial that reads like an ad appeared in the Albuquerque Journal; next the Santa Fe New Mexican ran a letter from Paul Block, Merisant CEO, with the absurd title ASPARTAME SAFE.

Block tells us: "there is simply no question aspartame is safe...200 studies over 30 years, etc., etc., etc." Rejoice that an unbiased, impartial authority, with no prejudice, absolutely neutral, servant of enlightenment, purity and truth recommends a neurotoxin he stands to cop an extra ten million from. In September Merisant bonused Block with four percent of the first $100 million, 5% of the next and 6% thereafter. Plus his regular pay, of course, and the limousine, and the airplane, and, and, and ...

Surely no one would think such meager monetary considerations color Block's allegiance to truth. He just drank too much diet pop and it blew his memory, #9 on the FDA list of 92 symptoms from 10,000 aspartame complaints. Block forgot the 17 page expose in September's Ecologist, and many renowned doctors raising outcry, publishing books, magazine and Internet articles, and by radio warning America of this dread and growing disaster. Block can't recall that once FDA asked the Justice Department to investigate the manufacturer for filing fraudulent reports to get it approved. Caught dead to rights, their defense lawyers hired the prosecutors and the case died with the statute of limitations. The Godfather hired the district attorney!

This wasn't the first time. A parade of FDA officials, Commissioners included, have hired into the aspartame business. Every test endorsing it was paid for by the manufacturer. All independent studies say its toxic. The Italian researchers declared it's a Multi-Potential Carcinogen. Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills says: "This study should terrify mothers and all those consuming aspartame sweetened products. This was a carefully done study which clearly demonstrated a statistically significant increase in several types of lymphomas and leukemias in rats. Both of these malignancies have increased significantly in this country since the widespread use of aspartame." FDA has received more complaints on aspartame than all other food additives combined, so they stopped taking complaints.

Aspartame makers are honorable men, all honorable men! So they put little blue paks of rat poison on restaurant tables worldwide, and the cursed stuff triggers diabetes, destroys the mind, eradicates sexual function, destroys sight and makes you fat! A test on 7 monkeys gave 5 grand mal seizures and killed number six. We're the monkeys now!

At every point in the fertility process aspartame destroys, beginning with the gleam in Mom and Pop's eyes. "It destroys female sexual response and induces male dysfunction," says James Bowen, M.D., "Beyond this, aspartame disrupts fetal development by aborting it or inducing defects. And if a live child is born aspartame may have heinously damaged the DNA of the baby, cursing future generations. The schools are filled with children with ADD, ADHD and behavioral problems triggered by this neurotoxin." The next phase in New Mexico's battle to free itself from aspartame begins with the N.M. Board of Pharmacy's consideration of a complete ban from children's vitamins and medications in Albuquerque on November 14 & 15. Co-petitioner with Stephen Fox (505 983 2002) is Ken Stoller, M.D., Pediatrics and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at UNM School of Medicine (505 - 820-6234).

Aspartame propaganda is tired and worn out. All shenanigans are a matter of public record. You can read the FDA audit, Bressler Report, damning Center for Disease Control investigation and protest of National Soft Drink Association on
http://www.dorway.com To Paul Block: Everybody's sick of the denials after a quarter century of controversy, sickness, ruination and death. The world has had enough. You don't have to lose your bonus, Paul, just change the label to read rat poison. The world already knows it's a killer.

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder, Mission Possible Intl, 9270 River Club Parkway, Duluth, Georgia 30097 770 242-2599 http://www.wnho.net and http://www.dorway.com Aspartame Toxicity Center, http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

To Investigate:

A juicy letter to the Albuquerque Journal they thought too strong to print: http://www.wnho.net/letter_abq_journa

Aspartame Manufacturers Tell A Whopper, http://www.wnho.net/whopper.htm http://www.rense.com/general67/aspar.htm

Ajinomoto, Aspartame & Brain Tumors: Recipe for Death
http://www.wnho.net/recipe_for_death.htm : Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, by H. J. Roberts, M.D.1,038 page medical text, http://www.sunsentpress.com or 1 800 827 7991.

See the documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World,
http://www.docworkers.com Learn how a deadly neurotoxin got FDA approval even after their tech people said NO!
http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/rumsfeld2.html

The Shocking Story of the World's Bestselling Sweetener, http://www.wnho.net/the_ecologist_aspartame_report.htm

Aspartame Interacts with All Drugs, Vaccines and Toxins: http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_interacts.htm

http://rense.com/general68/tiz.htm


Informant: beefree

Chemical Timebomb in your cosmetics cabinet

Be warned: your daily beauty regime could be taking years off your life.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article321838.ece


Informant: Scott Munson

http://www.wnho.net/the_ecologist_aspartame_report.htm


Informant: beefree

by Dorothy Seese
http://www.newswithviews.com/Seese/dorothy30.htm