ParfumGigi@aol.com
28 janvier 2006 16:55
Government Of, By and For The Pharmaceutical Industry
Santa Monica Mirror http://www.redflagsdaily.com/scream.php
U.S. Exempts Drug Makers From Liability In Fighting Epidemics
red flag news http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArticleDetails.asp?eid=2423
FDA Confirms It’s Pre-empting Lawsuits Against Drug Makers In State Courtsred flag news FDA Tries to Limit Drug Suits in State Courts http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802320.html?nav=rss_nation Artificial Sweeteners: Take Off The Blinders And See The Bitter Truth
red flag news
There’s a prevailing attitude in the medical establishment today that could be called "double-blind blindness." If any substance has not undergone proper clinical trials — i.e., double-blind, placebo-controlled and published in a peer-reviewed journal — then it is simply not worthy of consideration.
Last year, when I had chronic bronchitis, I asked the lung specialist if I could take two special herbals (astragalus and maitake) to wipe out the last traces of the problem. Up until then, she had impressed me as warm, gracious and extremely competent. I will never forget her cold, dismissive smile, really more of a sneer. "They have no double-blind trials."
The sneering-in-disdain doctors need to contemplate this key fact: Natural remedies cannot be patented. Therefore, there are no megabucks to finance the costly double-blind trials. Who would pay the researchers, the expenses? No patent, no profit.
Most double-blind doctors choose to overlook the fact that today’s medical studies are "infected" by the profit motive. Crucial data can be withheld (as in the case of Vioxx) and articles biased so that medical journals "have been besmirched by allegations of scientific misconduct…. Even our most trusted journals are dependent on drug-company money." (1)
Artificial sweeteners
Furthermore, their disdain is inconsistent. Where is their concern when it comes to such food additives as artificial sweeteners, which, since they are not classified as medicines, require no double-blind studies in humans? In the case of aspartame, testing was done in animals, and revealed serious side effects. Still, despite an exceptionally high incidence of brain tumors in laboratory rats, aspartame was approved for dry products in 1981. It was allowed in liquids several years later and in all foods in 1996, despite major concerns within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). More on that later.
Listen to this from the U.K.’s Daily Mail: "In 1996, a review of aspartame showed every industry-funded study had found the additive safe. However, 92 percent of independent studies identified some problems with its safety."
Also in 1996, neuroscientist John Olney reported that brain tumor rates had risen significantly in the past 17 years, and that improved diagnostic technology was only part of the explanation. "The artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in the incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors." (2)
You have only to do a computer search of the word aspartame to learn that it is considered neurotoxic and has more than 90 side effects officially listed with the FDA: headaches, muscle spasms, brain seizures, brain tumors, depression, male sexual dysfunction, memory loss, blindness … even death.
You’ll learn that aspartame is actually addictive, and that it has made its way into legions of products besides diet soft drinks: snack foods, yogurts, cereals, chewing gum, instant teas and coffees, and medicines and vitamin products — including those for children. Worldwide, it is regularly consumed by more than 350 million people. (3)
How aspartame came to be
A scientist investigating an ulcer medicine stumbled on aspartame by mistake in 1965 after he licked his finger and discovered an unusually sweet taste.
Four decades later, his find is responsible for the billion-dollar-a-year global sales of aspartame under such brand names as NutraSweet and Equal.
Some 40 percent of aspartame is aspartic acid, an amino acid that serves as a neurotransmitter in the brain. Taken in its free form (unbound to proteins), it causes blood levels of aspartate and glutamate to rise significantly. These are also called "excitotoxins" because they can "excite" or stimulate the brain’s neural cells to death. (4) Doctors who have studied the effects of aspartame find that the additive may trigger migraine headaches and, worse, may aggravate existing serious diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and Alzheimer’s. (5)
Fifty percent of aspartame is phenylalanine, another amino acid. Phenylalanine has a unique ability to cross the protective blood-brain barrier. Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock wrote that early studies were flawed in suggesting the buildup of phenylalanine in the brain was average and not dangerous. He found, instead, there were significant rises in certain specific areas. And that these rises could cause schizophrenia and increase the risk of seizures. (4) There are accounts of airline pilots experiencing vertigo and seizures after consuming diet sodas. (5)
The final 10 percent of aspartame is methanol, or wood alcohol, a known poison. Once in the body, it is converted by enzymes to become formaldehyde or formic acid (ant poison). As you may know, formaldehyde is not only toxic, it is used for embalming purposes. Methanol is implicated especially in vision problems, as it causes damage to the optic nerve and retina. It is far more dangerous in humans than in animals due to our lack of certain enzymes; so animal studies suggesting methanol is safe are irrelevant for humans. The claim that methanol is safe because it occurs in natural foods also doesn’t hold; in foods methanol is accompanied by ethanol, which balances it. In aspartame, there is no ethanol.
Then there’s DKP (diketopiperzine), the byproduct of aspartame metabolism, which is formed in liquid products containing the artificial sweetener after long periods in storage. These minute amounts are extremely toxic to the brain. Heat also increases the toxicity of aspartame’s components. There have been questions about whether the storage of diet soft drinks in the hot desert during the Gulf War may have played a part in the Gulf War Syndrome in American soldiers. DKP, when metabolized, closely resembles the powerful chemical N-nitrosourea, which causes brain tumors. (4)
The theory that aspartame becomes addictive is given weight by H. J. Roberts, MD, who points out that the neurotoxin is promptly absorbed "in the mouth and oropharnyx, with direct transport to the brain by a unique pathway." (6) The addiction, reported by those who try to give up the habit, may be due to altered brain chemistry. Some say aspartame is even harder to give up than cigarettes. (7) And they are understandably angry.
How did it get approved?
The approval took some time, as FDA scientists resisted this dangerous concoction for years, even questioning the validity of studies. Then political clout and cronyism forced it through. Apparently, the Darth Vader pulling the strings was none other than U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. ("There are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.")
In 1977, Rumsfeld was made CEO of Searle, the pharmaceutical company that wanted to push aspartame onto the market. Rumsfeld publicly stated that he would "call in all his markers." He apparently did. In 1981, when the Reagan administration came in, the then head of the FDA was replaced by Arthur Hull Hayes, MD, who immediately gave aspartame approval. Two years later, Hayes went on to high-paid medical advisory work for the public relations department of Searle.
Latest developments
Is the U.K. about to ban aspartame? The Daily Mail reported on Dec.15, 2005 that Roger Williams, a British MP and member of the parliamentary committee on environment, food and rural affairs, wants any product containing aspartame withdrawn from sale. Leading scientists have joined in.
By the way, Williams noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines the safe consumption of methanol as no more than 7.8 mg. daily. Anyone who drinks three cans of artificially sweetened drinks daily is consuming about 56 mg. (3)
A recent Italian study of the effects of aspartame on rats found increased cancer of the kidneys and the peripheral nerves, mainly in the head. There was also an increased risk of leukemias and lymphomas in female lab rats "at doses very close to the acceptable daily intake for humans." (9)
And a human study just in from Athens, Greece, suggests aspartame affects learning and memory processes in the brain. (10)
In the U.S., New Mexico may be the first to ban the artificial sweetener. Leading the effort is activist Stephen Fox, who has convinced the state's Environmental
Improvement Board to hold hearings on a possible ban in July. Fox says states need to become individually proactive, since the FDA is failing "to genuinely protect people’s health." (11)
Link to obesity?
Finally, there is evidence of a connection between aspartame and the obesity epidemic. Julian Whitaker, MD, points out that "far from helping us to lose weight, aspartame has been proven to increase appetite, especially cravings for sweets." (7) Another report says aspartame may make the consumer crave calorie-rich carbohydrates. (8) So a person may try to lose weight by drinking a diet cola, then reach for a high-calorie treat — or two. Diabetics are especially vulnerable to these problems. (12)
What about Splenda?
At this point, the obvious issue is finding safe alternatives. The natural herbal, stevia, once arbitrarily banned by the FDA, is pronounced safe, but is only found in health food stores; it also has a strong aftertaste. Unprocessed sugar from sugar cane (Sucanat) is available, as well as raw, wild honey, and they are both better choices. But what about the new sweetener, Splenda? How safe is it?
There really isn’t space here to fully examine this highly successful sweetener. Briefly, it is a chlorocarbon compound. It starts with table sugar and then goes through a five-step process in which some of the normal sugar atoms are replaced with chlorine. It ends up 600 times sweeter than white table sugar.
Researcher James Bowen, a biochemist, reports that Splenda (sucralose) can deliver chlorine directly into our cells and can form other toxins. "Any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body intact can cause immense damage to processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs. The liver is a detoxification organ that deals with ingested poisons. Chlorocarbons damage the … liver’s metabolic cells, and destroy them…. Just like aspartame … sucralose failed in clinical trials with animals." (13)
And now we’ve come full circle back to the double-blind problem. Apparently, there are no "independent" controlled human studies on sucralose.
It is up to us to protect ourselves. Beyond the obvious need to make wise dietary choices, we consumers have to read labels carefully and seek out research on all "additives." And we have to do so without any blinders — such as misplaced trust of those in power. As Rumsfeld himself might say: What we don’t know, we certainly don’t know.
References:
Consumer activists:
In Canada: www.aspartame.ca.
In the U.S.: www.dorway.com , www.holisticmed.com/aspartame and
Other sources:
Roberts, H.J. Aspartame: Is It Safe? Charles Press Publications, 1992.
Roberts, H.J. Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic. Sunshine Sentinel Press, 2001.
Forget Vioxx. What is now gradually emerging is a disaster several levels of magnitude more destructive. However, for a number of interconnected reasons, this disaster is unlikely to feature as even the tiniest blip on the radar screens of the mass media. Indeed, so far, it hasn’t registered at all.
The disaster, and the scandal, is thus:
"Sulfonylurea use raises risk of death"
This was the small headline on page nine of a medical magazine I picked up in the U.K.
For those who don’t know, sulfonylureas are used in type-II diabetes to boost insulin secretion from the pancreas and, thus, lower blood sugar levels. They have been around for a long, long time. They are also one of the most widely prescribed drug classes in type-II diabetes. Which means that millions of people have been prescribed sulfonylureas for decades.
Now, I am going to take you through a little calculation, based on figures from the most recent paper. This calculation uses the most conservative estimates that I could find, so the true figure is likely to be higher. The calculation is as follows:
2,720,000 x 29/1000 = 78,880/year
The first figure is derived from the number of scripts for sulfonylureas given out each year in the U.S. In 2001, this was 32.6 million (latest figures)(2). Assuming scripts are given every month, this means that 2.72 million people in the U.S. (32,600,000/12) take sulfonylureas each year.
The second (combined) figure is the relative increase in death due to taking sulfonylureas. This is 29 per 1,000 patients per year (1): 29/1,000. Now you can make full sense of my earlier figures.
The number of extra deaths each year, in the U.S., through the use of sulfonylureas is 2,720,000 x 29/1,000 = 78,880 deaths/year.
Assuming their use in Europe is similar, we can establish that sulfonylureas are likely to be killing almost 158,000 people each year — in the U.S. and Europe alone.
Below is a picture of a stadium with just over 100,000 people in it. Each year, sulfonylureas kill one and a half times this many.
e 1970. That’s right 1970 (3).
So why, you might ask, has this story not been shouted from the rooftops? Well, it might significantly embarrass a number of eminent opinion leaders and that — as we all know — would be a far greater tragedy for mankind.
The following equation is a way of calculating the relative impact of opinion leader embarrassment.
Negative impact of opinion leader embarrassment shall be known as Factor Emb.
Number of deaths = 158,000/year. The sum is as follows:
Factor Emb > 158,000 deaths per year
I now need to stop because I may write something that I will regret or, to be more accurate, something I might get sued for.
- Bell, David S.H. Do sulfonylurea drugs increase the risk of cardiac events? Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2006; 174(2):185-186. See abstract at http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/2/185 http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/6/1852 http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Diabetes/tb/2497
