Death, Sweet Death: The Dangers of Aspartame

Sovereign Independent

Aspartame is a sugar substitute frequently used in products like diet sodas. It has been linked to brain cancer, memory loss,

All artificial sweeteners contain aspartame, a genetically engineered form of bacterial waste.

impaired vision, hearing loss, joint pain, asthma and the list continues.

For 16 years, the FDA refused to approve this best-selling sweetener aspartame, until a powerful politician finally got it legalized after calling in a favor. A three-year study confirmed a link between aspartame and cancer, but the FDA (food and drug administration) officials approved the toxic sweetener against the advice of their own scientists. http://www.wnho.net/whopper.htm

On the 14th July 2005, the BBC reported on the new study entitled: Fresh doubts about the safety of an artificial sweetener have been raised by Italian scientists who have linked its use to leukemia in rodents. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4683371.stm
Aspartame is marketed as ‘Nutra Sweet’, ‘Equal’ and ‘Spoonful’ so if the label says SUGAR FREE, leave well alone. In a presentation by the EPA (environmental protection authority) it was announced that in 2001, there was an increase of patients being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus and it was difficult to determine what toxins were causing this to be so rampant.

Toxicity of the methanol mimics multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus along with other conditions that resulted in many people being misdiagnosed. Apparently, the rise in the diagnosis of Lupus is almost as high as multiple sclerosis. Once patients were taken off their diet of soda, their symptoms dramatically decreased. The victim, not knowing that the aspartame is the cause of their ailments continued its use, thus irritating the lupus to such an extent that it becomes life threatening.

Also, in the case of misdiagnosis of multiple sclerosis, once taken off the diet drinks, symptoms disappear and where there have been cases of vision and hearing loss, both improved dramatically. If you are suffering from symptoms of shooting pains, numbness in your legs, cramps, vertigo, dizziness fibromyalgia, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, blurred vision or memory loss, you may have aspartame poisoning. It is reversible, but you must stop with the diet pops and sodas and look out for aspartame on food labels as many products list the sweetener in their ingredients.

Diet drinks are not diet products, they are chemically altered, multiple sodium and aspartame containing products, that make you crave carbohydrates and is more likely to cause weight gain. It has been found that aspartame is particularly dangerous for diabetics, with physicians believing that they have patients with retinopathy, but had in fact symptoms, caused by aspartame which drives blood sugar out of control thus causing the diabetic to suffer acute memory loss due to the fact that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are ‘Neurotoxic’ when taken without other amino acids that are necessary to make a balance.

During observations of thousands of children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD, it was documented that they had a complete change in their behaviors after the aspartame had been removed from their diets. Ritalin and other behavior modification prescription drugs were no longer needed. The foods that the children were being fed that were supposed to have been better for them than sugar, were in fact slowly poisoning them on a daily basis.

It has been said aspartame can cause birth defects such as mental retardation if taken at the time of conception and during the early stage of pregnancy. There have been numerous cases relating to children who have suffered grand mal seizures amongst other neurological disturbances due to the use of Nutra Sweet. Artificial sweeteners should never be given to children!

It is not easy to convince parents that aspartame is bad for their child and may be the reason for the child’s illness. Stevia is a sweet herb that helps in the metabolism of sugar and would be ideal for diabetics. It is not a manufacture additive and has now been approved by the FDA as a dietary supplement. For many years the FDA outlawed this naturally sweet food due to their loyalty to ‘Monsanto Chemical Company’.

Both Doctor Russell Blaylock and Doctor H. J. Roberts have posted details with case histories on the effects and use of the deadly poison aspartame on the internet. On March 2nd 2008, the Jerusalem Posts’ health page read, ‘Artificial Sweeteners May Cause Weight Gain’. This was based on research published by the American Psychological Association.

Apparently sweet foods provide a feeling to the body’s system that one is about to consume a lot of calories which in turn gears up the body’s digestive reflexes to deal with them, but when the sweetness is false as in diet drinks and not followed by an intake of calories, the system gets confused which interferes with the body’s ability to regulate the intake.

The former Secretary of Defense worked for a company called GD Searle Corporation (before getting involved in politics) that developed the sweetener aspartame and for years the company tried to get the stuff approved. But no one wanted to know. The FDA refused to approve it. Once he moved into politics, he appointed a new FDA commissioner and in 1981 the new commissioner approved aspartame despite the proven dangers and before we knew it, it was added to almost everything.

Aspartame can make you feel hungry and help you put on weight. It is a deadly neurotoxin hiding as a harmless additive. The year 2007 saw UK supermarket chains Sainsbury, M&S and Asda announce that aspartame would no longer appear in their own brand products. In April 2009 ‘Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe’ who also make aspartame filed a complaint of ‘malicious falsehood’ against Asda for their ‘No Nasties’ campaign. Asda won their legal case. South African retailer Woolworths announced it was removing aspartame from its own label foods in 2009 and in this year, 2010 the British Food Standards Agency launched its own investigation into aspartame amid the claims of side effects after consuming the substance.

The FDA recommends 50 milligrams of aspartame per kilo of body weight. “The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food concluded in 2002 that, while some minor effects on health may occur at very high doses, no effects are expected at normal levels of consumption.”

BP’s Top Kill Procedure fails as Coast Guard Blocks Media Access

Natural News

BP officials have announced today that the “top kill” effort to stop the Gulf oil leak has failed. Unanticipated problems doomed the project, which involved trying to pump tens of thousands of gallons of mud, shredded rubber tires and other “junk” into the hole to try to halt the outflow of oil.

At 6pm Saturday evening, BP officials announced the “top kill” effort had failed and now they were moving on to another plan (more below).

I am on site at the Gulf Coast right now, and while I haven’t reached the areas where oil is washing up on the beaches, I’m learning some interesting information nonetheless. In particular, finding a hotel room anywhere near New Orleans has become virtually impossible, as BP has rented out virtually every available hotel room from St. Charles, Louisiana all the way to Pensacola, Florida. (I am currently staying in a fleabag hotel that miraculously has internet access…)

But it raises the question: Where are all these people? I haven’t seen a single BP person anywhere, and I was out on some beaches today filming editorial segments for NaturalNews. I did see some small watercraft laying out protective barriers, but I didn’t see any BP people anywhere.

I’ll keep you posted on what we find tomorrow as we approach the beaches to the East of New Orleans.

Expect more oil for the next 10 weeks

Now that the top kill effort has failed, it means oil will keep spewing into the Gulf of Mexico until at least August. That’s when two “pressure release” wells are expected to be completed. The purpose of these two wells is to siphon off the oil from underneath the ocean bed, thereby releasing the pressure that’s currently pushing crude oil out of the existing hole under the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig.

This “plan C” effort remains extremely risky, of course. There’s no guarantee it will work at all. And if it fails, this “volcano of oil” could continue to pollute the Earth’s oceans for years. This could, in fact, be the global killer event I warned about in an earlier story about this BP oil spill. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028805_G…)

We could be looking at a global-scale environmental catastrophe that destroys virtually all marine life in the Gulf of Mexico and takes a century to fully recover. It’s really that bad. If they can’t stop this volcano of oil in the next week, we could be looking at the single most destructive environmental catastrophe ever to strike our planet since the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Get ready for more chemicals

In the mean time, now that the top kill effort has failed, BP has announced it is resuming the spraying of chemical dispersants into the massive oil plumes that remain deep under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico water. This means more chemicals that will kill more forms of marine life throughout the Gulf.

But it’s not just aquatic life that’s being threatened by these chemicals: BP workers are increasingly being sent to the hospital complaining of symptoms like vomiting, dizziness, difficult breathing and others. The obvious cause of such symptoms is the huge amount of crude oil bubbling up to the surface (some of which evaporates into the air) along with the massive injection of chemical dispersants into the waters (some of which also evaporates). CNN is reporting that BP claims it is monitoring air quality, but so far BP has not gone public with any air quality test results.

None of the cleanup workers have been outfitted with chemical masks that might protect them from the volatile chemicals now present in the Gulf waters. Yet CNN is reporting that the warning label on the chemical product made by NALCO states: “Avoid breathing vapor.”

The EPA, meanwhile, remains silent on this whole issue. Remember: It is the EPA that ordered BP to stop using its selected brand of chemical dispersant, but BP utterly ignored the EPA and continues to dump that very same chemical into the Gulf of Mexico right now.

A chemical attack on America

What we are watching here, folks, is very nearly a chemical attack on America by BP and the oil industry. It’s hard to say what’s worse: The oil or the chemical dispersants. In fact, no one knows the answer to that question, and it can’t even be studied by scientists because the disaster keeps growing by the day.

This is one environmental catastrophe that just keeps getting worse, and the cost to the marine ecosystem is incalculable. And that’s not to even mention the economic cost to the region and all the people who depend on life in the Gulf of Mexico for their own livelihoods. Their lives are now being destroyed by this oil drilling catastrophe.

If there’s one lesson that comes from all this, it is a reminder of the immense value Mother Nature provides us each and every day at no charge. The VALUE of a healthy ocean is incalculable. And the COST of killing it may be more than what human civilization can bear.

I suppose this resolves the whole question of what’s more important: The environment or the economy? As we’re rudely discovering today, the economy cannot exist without protecting the environment first.

Compact Fluorescent Threats

Few People Know the Dirty Secret Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Keep

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 5, 2010

For many people, fluorescent light bulbs -those swirly compact wonders that everyone keeps pushing on you- are instruments foCFLr saving energy and money on the light bill every month. But for many users of those bulbs the results after exposing themselves to the bright light, has gone beyond what they expected. Instead of providing light to read a book or take on a chore at home, fluorescent light bulbs are the perpetrators of massive burns, irritation and skin rashes. These skin conditions have appeared after just 10 to 20-minute exposures to the bulbs’ radiation.

Besides the rashes and irritation, victims of the bulbs also blame them for headaches, lack of concentration, dizziness, and a general state of discomfort. The irritation varies in severity from person to person and it can appear in different places on the skin; from the arms to the legs, ears, neck and hands. Those who have experienced the consequences of the emissions from the bulbs concur that after they removed them from their homes, all the afflictions went away in a matter of days, or even hours.

A recent investigation carried out by a television news program called 16:9, brought out an unknown fact. The compact fluorescent bulbs emit ultraviolet radiation. That’s right, the same radiation found in solar rays. Scientists and consumer product protection agencies like Health Canada, studied the bulbs and discovered they are not sold with prismatic diffusers to filter the UV radiation that comes out of them. This is thought to be the cause of the rashes and other affections that the bulbs cause, especially on people with skin diseases.

The questions raised after realizing the bulbs give out UV radiation are how much of it do they emit, and could it be harmful enough to cause cancer? These two questions have not been answered by the agencies that are supposed to oversee consumer safety in North America, therefore there isn’t an official position. What there is, is a growing number of consumers who were mildly and severely ‘burned’ by the radiation that comes out of the bulbs. How did people come to this conclusion? Most of them had blood tests performed on them to rule out any kind of blood disease or skin condition, and in all cases the tests came out negative.

After months without any answers from the consumer protection agencies, the program 16:9 traveled to London, England, where government scientists studied the bulbs and reached the results everyone who uses the fluorescent bulbs is afraid to hear. Scientists found that from a random sample of bulbs, one of every five emitted high levels of UV radiation. The conclusion is that the mercury contained in the bulbs, which is needed for them to operate, is what creates the ultraviolet radiation blamed for the headaches, rashes and stains of people’s skin.

While fluorescent light bulbs are more and more common in every household, countries like Canada will ban the traditional incandescent ones by 2012, which will limit the options consumers have to illuminate their homes and offices. Andrew Lankfort, the head of a non-governmental consumer oriented agency in the United Kingdom, affirms that most studies have agreed that the bulbs’ radiation are the origin of blisters and irritation that people have experienced. Whether this radiation causes skin cancer or not, he says, “only time will tell”.

Despite the multiple complaints from consumers, no country has approved legislation that mandates the bulbs have a warning on their labels about the possibility of radiation originated skin conditions as well as headaches and dizziness. In the meantime, countries like Canada and the United Kingdom have made available compact fluorescent bulbs which are covered with a diffuser to limit the exposure to the UV radiation. Dermatologist Cheryl Rosen says that she recommends to her patients to reduce the distance and time of exposure to the bulbs and traditional fluorescent tubes that are used in office buildings. After being questioned by the production of the program 16:9, the three major producers of compact fluorescent bulbs -Phillips, Silvannia and General Electric- only commented that their bulbs meet industry standards and only Phillips admitted to be performing tests on the bulbs in order to determine their safety. A major concern for consumers is that there aren’t guidelines established by the governments when it comes to UV radiation safety, so even if the bulbs were harmful, the companies would not be braking any law.

But the findings reported by the program 16:9 did not end there. How about electromagnetic pollution? Yes, that is what makes the compact fluorescent bulbs even worse that previously thought. Studies by Dr. Magda Habbis a professional in electromagnetic energy, find that these bulbs emit almost ten times more electromagnetic waves than what is considered safe and normal. While and incandescent bulb shows 27 on the radio frequency meter, the compact one reaches 580. Electromagnetic pollution is that which comes from cellular phones, high tension electric wires, wireless Internet signals and other technology shown to cause electric imbalances in the human body. The high levels of electromagnetic energy emitted by the compact bulbs has earned a new name: ‘dirty energy’. One case is that of Larry Newman; Dr. Larry Newman, a neurologist at the Headache Institute of New York, who has suffered the consequences of ‘dirty energy’. Dr. Newman has seen the number of patients complaints over compact fluorescents increase alarmingly. “There is something about those bulbs that trigger my headaches,” Newman says. More and more of his patients are going back to the good old incandescent light bulbs.

Dr. Christine Lay, also a neurologist, has patients who changed all their compact fluorescent bulbs for the incandescent ones and experienced relief almost immediately. She says it will take action from consumers to obligate the makers of the bulbs investigate the consequences of continuous exposure to the bulbs and the possible links to skin conditions and even skin cancer. Kevin Burn, a former victim of the bulbs left his job and began testing his neighbors’ bulbs for electrical pollution. Mr. Burn says before changing the bulbs in his house, the pain was as bad as having arthritis. Some of his tests revealed that some bulbs emit up to 1000 volts and that energy, he says, goes right through people’s bodies. The closer one is to the bulb, the greater the exposure. Since the bulbs contain mercury, a well known neuro-toxine, those who intend to change their compact fluorescent bulbs must be careful not to break them and inhale the vapors contained in the bulb. Once taken from the sockets, they need to be taken to especial recycling facilities where proper disposal is done.

So what is a person to do if the industry bans the incandescent bulbs? There is another option in the market: LED, or Light Emitting Diods. These bulbs record safe energy emission levels and so far no complaints from users. Furthermore, they are even more efficient than the compact fluorescent bulbs.

Just as the compact bulbs, the LED ones are making a slow but sure appearance into the market, and although there are not available everywhere, it is expected consumers will bring them into the main stream just as they did with CFL’s.

Sources:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26990
http://www.residentiallighting.com/Can-sitting-too-close-to-a-CFL-cause-a-rash-article10833
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2004/2004_68-eng.php
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4217864.html
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/cheryl-rosen/5/894/a2
http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/575275
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303163909
http://www.wehealny.org/headache/staff.html
http://www.wehealny.org/headache/about.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode