"The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease."
- Thomas Edison
Cancer is a political problem more than it is a medical problem.
Corrupted Research - Exposing the Peer Review Process
"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." - Abraham Lincoln
For thousands of years there was simple "cause and effect"... which was the rule not the exception. Today we have industry-funded "double-blind" "studies", usually with pre-determined outcomes.
Years ago there were no "double-blind" STUDIES. Why? Getting the patient well was the only thing that counted. Now, with rigged studies we have aspartame approved for use in EVERYTHING, including heated and baked goods where it breaks down faster.
You want studies... check out http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html (notice that all 74 of G.D. Searle's studies "proved" safety. Then note the RAO test below.
You want simple, effective and permanent beneficial results (if applicable) then do the no-use test (see http://www.dorway.com/test.txt)
Keep in mind that aspartame, when used WITH MSG, can have a magnified effect. Also keep in mind that everyone reacts differently to substances, and differently and different times based on other substances consumed, and other variables. Double-blind studies are of little real use except to enable rigged studies to "prove" a predetermined point. Need an example?
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/100399.html "the dairy industry self-destructs".
Instead of proving that 3 (vs 1.5) glasses of milk a day were more healthy for humans... this dairy-industry study "proved" that loading the "high milk group" portion of this study with women on estrogen pills (no dairy needed for better bone density) would "prove" that more milk meant better bones. In the process they put the FDA on report for lying. FDA said all the hormones (and IGF-1 is a powerful growth hormone identical between cow's and humans) were destroyed in the digestive process.... so it didn't matter that using rbGH shots on dairy cows (to make cow's make MORE milk for a GLUTTED market) boosted IGF-1 in milk by up to 80%. Gee... a "small" item in this dairy study (they found it impossible to lie about everything) is that those folks who consumed THREE glasses of milk (vs only 1.5) had a 10% increase in IGF-1 in their blood serum.
So much for that study. Now... consider the fact that the makers of MSG used aspartame in the placebos (before aspartame was a legal substance for human consumption). Why? Because the leading complaint was migraine-like headaches.
Try this study... ignored, for the most part, by the press:
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/030799.html (or for the source material)
How about a G.D. Searle study?
During the approval process on aspartame the FDA selected 15 of G. D. Searle's 74 tests calling them "pivotal" to proving the safety of aspartame. One of those tests was the Rao report (SC18862), a year long test of baby monkeys being fed aspartame-laced milk. After day 200 five of the seven had seizures with EACH feeding, and the seventh one died (but the public will never know why because the data on why was "lost"). Dr. Moser, the Nutrasweet spokesman, communicated with Jennifer Cohen concerning her diet coke science report that was published in the prestigious "Food Chemical News" (1100 bucks a year for a subscription) attempting to prove she was "mistaken" about aspartame. When young Jennifer asked about the RAO report Dr. Moser said:
"..the study should never have been undertaken, much less submitted as legitimate observation. This particular (Rao) experiment represents an unpardonable breach in methodology". (H. Moser, Nutrasweet spokesman)
Non-human animal studies? Mice, rats and monkeys are not humans. What makes anyone think that studies performed on them apply to any human? Good case in point is the original "data" on the pink stuff... sodium saccharine. For many years (about the time aspartame came to market) the FDA required a mandatory "warning: caused cancer in lab animals" notice on those pink packets. The Canadians finished a 24 year study that showed this to be applicable only to MALE rats (with a particular enzyme in their body) that were fed obscene amounts of saccharine. The FDA (culpable) essentially said "so what" and did nothing. However, two years later (with little notice) the FDA got a twinge of honesty and authorized the removal of that scare warning.
Yes... "double blind" and other "studies" are perfect... for the one footing the bill who wants a desired outcome.
As someone who suffered progressive pain and evermore crippling problems from Equal in my coffee for 15 years... I have NO need of any type of study, rigged or not. What saved my day (and led to the over 800 pages of time-tested material on DORway.com... that help to balloon 3 anti-aspartame web sites into around 100,000 today (google), and helped to put Monsanto out of the Nutrasweet business in less than four years) was:
"If one has medical problems that their doctors cannot seem to cure (or they are too young to have old-age related problems) *AND* they consume products laced with aspartame, then try the FREE at-home 60-day NO-aspartame self-test... and simply observe the results".
Those who favor industry-funded "studies" are quick to denigrate that simple (and medically sound) suggestion.
For 15 years none of those industry-funded FDA-approved "studies" were of no use to my failing health. I have no use for studies performed on rats, mice, monkeys or whatever... to prove to ME that something is safe. All it proves to me is that someone cares not about animals... and since I, as a human animal, am also included in the animal kingdom it means they have no respect for ME, either.
Most sincerely, Dave Rietz
Community email addresses:
Post message: aspartameNM@onelist.com
List owner: aspartameNMfirstname.lastname@example.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to