From: Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum., Bettym19@mindspring.com
Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2007 1:38 pm
Subject: Open Letter to Dr. Husniaht, Indonesia: Aspartame and Political Chicanery
Dear Dr. Husniaht,
I wrote you a couple of days ago and want to make sure you got the message. After your original press release on banning aspartame, it could only be expected that all the powers to be would bear down on you to try and convince you aspartame is safe. It's not - its an addictive, excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug that interacts with all drugs and vaccines: http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_interacts.htm
Here is the FDA's original Board of Inquiry Report revoking the petition for approval. http://www.wnho.net/fda_petition1.doc You will note there is a clip from the aspartame documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, as a forward with James Turner, Atty, explaining how Don Rumsfeld called in his markers to get aspartame approved. Rumsfeld was on President Reagan's transition team and the day after he took office appointed an FDA Commissioner who would over-rule the Board of Inquiry Reagan was so concerned it would take 30 days to get Dr. Hayes to the FDA that he actually wrote an executive order making the FDA powerless to do anything about aspartame until he got there.
Understand aspartame was not approved by science; it was marketed because of political chicanery on the part of Don Rumsfeld who was CEO at the time of Searle. It's outrageous the approval process was taken out of the hands of the FDA and put on a silver platter for the manufacturer to do as they pleased in order to make billions of dollars on a cash cow. The methanol in aspartame is classified as a narcotic. (Louis, R. J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Eighth Edition, New York; Van Nostrand Reingold - 1992 PP. 2251-2252)
Searle was trying to get a deadly poison to show safety and couldn't. They were caught doing such things as excising brain tumors from rats, putting them back in the study, and when they died resurrecting them on paper. They were filtering out cancers so the FDA wouldn't know everything caused by the toxin. Still they were caught. The Bressler Report or FDA Audit, gives you these facts: http://www.dorway.com/bressler.txt In a conversation with Bressler he admitted that the studies were so bad when his report was retyped the FDA without his permission removed the worst 20%. He also spoke with Dr. H. J. Roberts and Dr. Russell Blaylock. Dr. Roberts immediately wrote his congressman to retrieve the missing data but the FDA even refused a congressman, after all it was now on the market and this showed that FDA knew how poisonous it was.
It was more than just not approving aspartame; FDA wanted them indicted for fraud. On January 10, l977 in a 33 page letter, FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill recommended to U.S. Attorney Sam Skinner that a grand jury investigate Searle for "apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 331 (e), and the False Reports to the Government Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001 for "their willful and knowing failure to make reports to the Food and Drug Administration required by the Act 21 U.S.C 355 (i) and for concealing material facts and making false statements on reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of aspartame." The FDA called special attention to studies investigating the effect of NutraSweet on monkeys and hamsters.
As one former employee told me, they were sure Searle was going to be closed down, they had two sets of studies, and everyone there knew it was poison. Searle couldn't let this happen so they bought the prosecutors!!!! U.S. Prosecutor Sam Skinner and William Conlon hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired.
The FDA still thought they could prevent it from being marketed and revoked the petition for approval, as the above report shows. After Hayes had done the deadly deed of approving this neurotoxin he then went to work for the PR Agency of the manufacturer, Burson Marsteller, at $1000.00 a day on a ten year contract and has refused to talk to the press ever since. What a reward for selling out the health of a nation and the world.
Your next question should be how did it get approved around the world? That was an easy one. Searle made a "business deal" with Paul Turner who worked for Food Standards, England's regulatory body, without anyone knowing. Parliament had a big blowout but did not rescind the order. The Guardian wrote the story and I have a copy of it. Searle knew if other countries found out the FDA wanted them indicted for fraud, they could never get it approved anywhere else. The UK did no studies. Once approved in England all they had to do was rubberstamp it around the world, and that's what happened. Here is the history of aspartame coming to market: http://www.dorway.com/historyfaq.txt
But still Searle was in hot trouble because once independent studies were done it would expose the chemical for what it is, a poison. In the 8 month investigation of NutraSweet by United Press International, Gregory Gordon, states: "Wurtman, who quit his job as a Searle consultant and became a vocal NutraSweet opponent, said he has been contacted by more than 200 persons who suspect they suffered seizures as a result of NutraSweet use. He said Dr. Gerald Gaull, a Searle vice president, visited his laboratory in 1985 and threatened to veto funding by ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute), the Washington-based tax-exempt foundation, for his planned study into whether NutraSweet changes brain chemistry, lowering some humans seizure thresholds".
"Gaull said, "theres no way" Searle, with one of 12 votes on the ILSI panel, could veto a grant decision, but he did not deny making the threat. International Life Sciences Institute is a body funded by sweetener manufacturers and major aspartame users such as Coca Cola, PepsiCo and Nestle, and Monsanto. ILSI ultimately turned away Wurtman on grounds that Searle already had arranged for seizure studies at Yale University and New Yorks Mount Sinai Hospital studies that have drawn criticism because human volunteers were given aspartame only once or twice."
Scientific Abuse in Seizure Studies: http://www.dorway.com/wurtman2.html
Wurtman said then he was tapping his laboratorys budget, which is extremely limited, slowing progress on his own studies. "Aspartame may be a serious health hazard," "Its critically important that high quality research now be done to assess this hazard." In his letter to the AMA Journal, Pardridge said no one has fully researched the degree to which aspartame raises phenylalanine levels on the brain and, if so, what the possible effects are. He said in an interview, after he raised questions about the sweeteners effects on children, that ILSI rejected his two grant proposals in 1985.
Dr. Wurtman saw the "hand writing on the wall" and switched sides. When contacted in 1999 for comment he indicated he had washed his hands on that subject. His understudy, Paul A. Spiers, PhD, now carries the NutraSweet ball and his supportive drivel a "keystone" of pro-aspartame dogma.
Dr. Louis Elsas, who publicly assailed NutraSweet in 1985, said he was put off for a year before ILSI rejected his proposal without stating a reason.
While denying funding for these aspartame skeptics, the company (G.D.Searle/NutraSweet Co.) and ILSI have financed researchers with whom they have long-running relationships. A number of industry-funded scientists acknowledged that company and ILSI officials originated ideas for their studies or participated in the research design. These studies generally have reported the sweetener is safe.
Consumer lawyer Turner said, "The notion that an industrial company would take large sums of money and parcel it out to scientific consulting firms and university departments, who they consider to be personal and commercial allies is an unconscionable way to ensure the safety of the American food supply."
He said the NutraSweet experience shows that "the entire system of the way scientific research is done needs to be carefully investigated, evaluated, and revamped."
Food industry officials also said most studies financed by Searle or the NutraSweet Co. have been arranged as contracts, rather than grants. Smith said the company often uses contracts "to accomplish a specific research task."
James Scala, former director of health sciences for the General Foods Corp., a major NutraSweet user, said that a scientist working under contract became "more of an arm of the Searle research group than a grantee."
Scala, now with the Shaklee Corp., also said that most early NutraSweet research consisted of short-term studies that ignored possible "subtle," long-term effects.
Matalon said, "Let us say cigarettes were invented today, and you give 20 people two packs a day and after six weeks, -no one has cancer-, would you say that it was safe? Thats what they did with NutraSweet." Excellent analogy!
Dr. Martha Freeman, who was a medical officer at the FDAs Bureau of Drugs in the early 1970s, argued in 1973 that the substance (aspartame) was "a new chemical...that doesn't occur naturally" and should only be approved after long-term clinical studies, as if it were a new drug. Her arguments were rejected.
Professional trade organizations have found NutraSweet to be safe, because they are paid to do so through funding by aspartame manufacturers.
Wurtman said he personally was aware of more than 200 cases in which he suspects NutraSweet has caused health problems such as headaches, dizziness, and seizures.
The aspartame industry has tried to cover every base getting what they wanted because their checkbook is bottomless. They make sure they have people in high places. Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court , was once a Monsanto attorney. Even when the European Food Safety Authority reviewed the Ramazzini Study you saw the hand of the aspartame manufacturers. The ESFA tried to say respiratory disease of the rats caused the cancer. Dr. Soffritti mentioned in one of his notes about this bizarre statement because respiratory disease is the dying process, and they knew that. Finally someone on the committee came forward and admitted that they were pressured by industry to hijack science. http://www.wnho.net/letter_to_efsa.htm
No matter what the aspartame industry has done to keep this chemical poison on the market, one thing they haven't done is prove aspartame safe. Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, a former FDA toxicologist, and member of an FDA task force that investigated the authenticity of research done by Searle to establish the safety of aspartame, testified before Congress in l987. She said she believes the original aspartame studies were "built on a foundation of sand." She testified in front of a U. S. Senate hearing in l987 that flawed tests conducted by Searle - used as the basis of FDA approval - were a "disaster" and should have been thrown out. She said also she believed the studies left many unanswered questions about possible birth defects and the safety of aspartame. "The team was instructed not to be concerned with, or comment upon, the overall validity of the study."
Dr. Verrett also said a subsequent review discarded or ignored the problems and deficiencies outlined by her team's original report. She declared, "serious departures from acceptable toxicological protocols" that her investigative team noted in the reevaluation of these studies was also discounted. She warned that any of the improper practices would compromise and negate a safety study of a food additive. Verrett concluded the data in the study was worthless, and the safety of aspartame and its breakdown products have therefore not been determined.
In l996 Dr. Ralph Walton did research on aspartame scientific peer reviewed studies having to do with funding. 92% of all independent scientific peer reviewed studies showed the problems aspartame caused. In fact, Dr. Walton said if you eliminated 6 studies that the FDA had something to do with, because of the controversy, and one pro-aspartame summary, 100% of all independent studies showed the problems. So why would any studies controlled or funded by the NutraSweet industry only show safety? Could it be they were paid to give favorable results? After all they are trying to defend this poison, and couldn't get around the fact that independent and unbiased studies always showed the problems.
FDA in the US is simply Big Pharma's Washington Branch Office. It was Nov 22, 1996 that Greg Gordon of the Star Tribune wrote the article: "FDA Resisted Proposals To Test Aspartame. He mentions that two NIEHS toxicologists, James Huff and June Dunnick, said they sought independent studies not because they have data suggesting NutraSweet causes health problems, but because of the nagging safety concerns about one of the most pervasive food additives. "Disclosure that federal scientists outside the FDA sought more studies adds a new twist to a long-running controversy over the manner in which the agency approved the popular, low-calorie sweetener in l981, expanded its uses in l983 and defended its safety over the last 15 years" (now 25+).
Here is Dr. Walton's paper on aspartame and scientific peer reviewed studies and funding. http://www.dorway.com/doctors.html#walton
Dr. Husniaht, over 30 years after the creation of this deadly toxin, once listed by the pentagon in an inventory of prospective chemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress, http://www.wnho.net/the_ecologist_aspartame_report.htm aspartame still has not been proven safe nor will it ever be.
If aspartame manufacturers continue to try and convince you its safe, you can settle the agreement very quickly. Here is my open letter to Ajinomoto: http://www.wnho.net/ajinomotoletter.htm I wrote this years ago because their web site was full of lies. There is no way for aspartame manufacturers to defend themselves so they lie and call names. One thing they avoid is "the subject". So I would write Ajinomoto and tell them if they believe aspartame is so safe answer this letter. If they don't do it, they should be indicted for genocide. There is no in between or gray area. It's black and white. And, incidentally, today people are dropping dead because of this poison. Aspartame causes an irregular heart rate, interacts with cardiac medication, destroys the cardiac conduction system and causes sudden death: http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_msg_scd.htm There is nothing more important than this issue.
I look forward to hearing from you. Also, I would like to discuss Neotame, just another aspartame and Splenda, a chlorocarbon poison. http://www.wnho.net/splenda_chlorocarbon.htm
Dr. Betty Martini
Founder, Mission Possible Wolrd Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Aspartame Toxiocity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame