"There is no sworde to bee feared more than the Learned pen"

Are we the real lab rats?

In aspartame poisoning, eoc, EOC EYEONCITRUS.COM, FDA on kp25 at 311207

lab rat1 300x225 Straight Talk About Aspartame

Is aspartame poisoning an urban myth? Some doctors say so, the FDA says so, and snopes says so. Why would they say it was safe if it wasn’t true?

“Above all else, do no harm.”

Ever hear that phrase? It’s from the Hippocratic Oath. Too bad not all doctors swear in by it any more, and many don’t abide by it. Where medicine is concerned, shouldn’t it be about erring on the safe side and guiding people toward decisions that will better their health rather than harm it? I’m appalled, not just by our legal and health systems, but by the minions who follow popular soundbytes without bothering to check the facts.

Consider this: If soy, a product with healthful qualities, can be damaging to your health in larger quantities, how can anyone not question possible harmful effects from a man-made synthetic sweetener that’s now prevalent in more than 10,000 products and drugs?

I just don’t get it.

The FDA says it’s not going to hurt me. Shouldn’t I trust them?

In 1980, the FDA Public Board Of Inquiry voted unanimously to reject the use of aspartame. The short version as to why? (In their words, not mine.)

  • Flawed data
  • Brain tumor findings in animal studies
  • Lack of studies on humans to determine long-term effects

Want the longer version? Read the history timeline here on DORway, then read about theshady way it was approved, including being ramrodded through the approval process by Donald (one of the architects of death, editors note) Rumsfeld, who later went to work for the PR firm representing Searle (the company that first marketed the chemical). And if that weren’t enough, the Bressler Report, written by Jerome Bressler (who worked for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1977), describes numerous instances where Searle was less than forthcoming about reporting negative results. So the FDA allowed Searle to conduct and present their own tests and then to submit the findings of their choice. This, my friends, is a matter of pubic record. It’s a long read, but you can check it out a pdf of the official document here on DORway.

Incidentally, there have still been no studies done on humans to determine long-term effects, but the FDA seems to have conveniently ignored that part of their initial rationale.

So my question is… why should you trust the FDA?

Scratching head…

As a last word: To those who feel the FDA would never OK something and then stubbornly refuse to remove it from the marketplace because of the negative financial impact of removing it, I have only one question: Ever hear of cigarettes?

As long as I just stick to the FDA’s acceptable daily intake, I’m cool. I’m not worried.

Really? Do you know what the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of aspartame is? When it was first approved, it was 20 mgm/kgm bodyweight. Then, once it was approved for use in Coke products, for some reason, the FDA decided it was OK (without additional studies – we’ll call their rationale “The Science of Politics”) to raise the limit to 50 mgm per kgm body weight.

Consider this: At 20 mgm per kgm bodyweight, a 50 llb child can reach his ADI with 2 ½ cokes. You do the math.

Thanks again, FDA. Rest of story here….

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: