142 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

DALLAS - May 26, 1998 -- In an unprecendented move, US Food and Drug Administration officials threatened
legal action against Texas-based Stevita Co., importers of the sweet-tasting herbal dietary supplement,
stevia - for distributing books and literature about their product.

The latest volley in a bitter battle has been fired at Texas-based Stevita Co.by federal Food and Drug
Administration officials. The FDA, an agency of the federal government, is responsible for upholding the U.S.
Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression. This responsiblity was drawn into question
on May 19th when FDA Compliance Officer, James R. Lahar faxed a letter to Stevita Co. addressing the
destruction of 2,500 books he deemed "offending," at a cost to the company well in excess of $10,000. The
letter further threatens that investigators will conduct a current inventory and "witness the destruction of
the cookbooks, literature, and other publications for the purpose of verifying compliance" upon visiting
Stevita Co. for a fourth time this year.

One of three books in question is The Stevia Story - A tale of incredible sweetness & intrigue, by Linda
Bonvie, Bill Bonvie and Donna Gates with Foreword by James S. Turner, Esq.. Ironically, Chapter Four of
the book the FDA wants to destroy is titled: "What's wrong with the FDA?" An attempt to strongarm critics
into silence - similar to book burnings in Nazi Germany?

Tonya Rodes, marketing director for the Stevita Company said the FDA ordered the action because the
books contain general information that includes: history, usages and scientific studies regarding stevia.

Currently, Federal law requires stevia herbal products can only be marketed as dietary supplements without
any mention of having sweetening power.

[thefirstimmortal]

Here is the actual letter from the Department of Health & Human Services, dated May 19, l998 to Mr. Rhodes
of the Stevita Co.



Dallas District

3310 Live Oak Street

Dallas, Texas 76204-6191

VIA FACSIMILE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS

Mr. Oscar D. Rhodes, President

Stevita Co., Inc.

7650 Highway 287, Suite 100

Arlington, Texas 76017



Dear Mr. Rhodes:

This letter is written in response to the May 13, l998 letter by Ms. Jaylene M. Sarracino, Esq., addressed to
the attention of Ms. Stella Notzon of this office, on the subject of further detainment of Stevita co. stevia

products under Entry Numbers 125-0981854-3 & 125-0981567-1. Ms. Sarracino's letter documents a
telephone conversation with Ms. Notzon on the subject of cookbooks and other publications used in the
marketing of your stevia products. In her letter, Ms. Sarracino states that on May 14, l998, Stevita Co. will
discontinue the sale of any publications, and will sever all links to web-site information referencing the
questionable use of stevia products. She indicates the stevia products will be marketed strictly as dietary
supplements with only the labeling currently appearing on the product containers.

The agency appreciates Stevita Co's expressed intention to comply with the law. However, a current
inventory must be taken by an investigator of this office, who will also be available TO WITNESS
DESTRUCTION OF THE COOKBOOKS, LITERATURE AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS for the purpose of
verifying compliance. Additionally, your stevia products currently in distributor and retail channels with the
offending cookbooks, literature and other publications continue to be in violation of the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act (the Act). These products are unapproved food additives in violation of Section 409, and
adulterated within the meaning of Section 402 (a) (2) © of the Act. We are prepared to pursue further
regulatory action against these products should they continue to be adulterated in distribution.

The inspection of your facility on April 27, l998 conducted jointly by investigators of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the Texas Department of Health, along with visits to your consignees, documented
your firm's continued marketing of your stevia products as conventional foods accompanied by OFFENDING
LITERATURE, COOKBOOKS, AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, in violation of the Act as cited in the FDA
warning letter of March 6, 1998.

Further regulatory action will be considered against new shipments of stevia products marketed in this
manner, as well as against those parent lots from which the adulterated products are being marketed.



If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may call me at 214-655-5318, ext. 517.



Sincerely,



James R. Lanar

Compliance Officer

CC: Jaylene M. Sarracino, Esq.

Capital Office Park

6301 Ivy Lane, Suite 102

Greenbelt, Maryland 20708

[thefirstimmortal]

Stevia is a perennial shrub, the extracts of which have been used for centuries as a safe, natural sweetener
by people in Paraguay and Brazil. Stevia is 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar. After great pressure by
consumers the FDA finally approved it only as a dietary supplement and lifted the embargo. The FDA with
strong loyalties to Monsanto actually forbids this food source to come into the country. Zolton P. Rona, M.D.,
MSc said in Health Naturally, August/Sept l996: "In l991, the FDA banned stevia imports for use in foods,
reportedly at the request of an aspartame manufacturer." That says it all - it appears the FDA and Monsanto
do not want competition with their neurotoxin, NutraSweet.

In a letter to Dr. Kesslser of the FDA from William R. Pendergast (Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn) dated
October 21, l991 about Stevia, he said: "American Herbal Products Association believes that FDA's position
is incorrect in that stevia leaf is not a food additive within the meaning of Sec. 201 (s), 21 U.S.C. 321 (s)
because it is exempt from that definition by reason of its "common use in food" prior to l958. For that reason,
FDA approval pursuant to Sec 409, 21 U.S.C. 348 of the Act is not required and, indeed, AGPA does not seek
such approval here. AHPA seeks only FDA's acquiescence in the marketing of stevia containing foods in
interstate commerce, such acquiescence based upon the facts, data and legal issues as presented herein."

The sad thing is that Stevia is a wonderful herb that helps in the metabolism of sugar, and has been used to
aid diabetics; and it doesn't keep blood sugar out of control. On the other hand, aspartame is a deadly
neurotoxin, a drug that interacts with other drugs, and precipitates diabetes. Monsanto funds the American
Diabetic Association and American Dietetic Association who even admit that Monsanto (NutraSweet) writes
their material. Aspartame is a molecule composed of three components, aspartic acid, phenylalanine and
methanol (wood alcohol). Methanol converts to formaldehyde and formic acid and causes metabolic acidosis.
The phenylalanine in aspartame at 50% lowers the seizure threshold of the brain and depletes serotonin.
Phenylalanine and aspartic acid are two of three amino acids that cannot be isolated from the other amino
acids in protein and go beyond the blood brain barrier causing brain damage of varying degrees. H. J.
Roberts, M.D., Board Certified and Recertified Internist (and diabetic specialist) has now declared
Aspartame to be a Disease and worldwide epidemic. He says that in diabetics aspartame destroys the optic
nerve, keeps blood sugar out of control and causes patients to sometimes go into convulsions. By the FDA's
own report, aspartame triggers 92 documented symptoms from four types of seizures to coma and death.

The FDA has consistently fought against the healthy Stevia Leaf. In a country founded on freedom you can
go to the library and buy a book on how to make a bomb, or buy trashy pornography, but its illegal to tell the
consumer public the history of the Stevia Leaf, and the fact that it is a sweetener and has health advantages.
Yet it is perfectly all right for the FDA to approve a chemical poison, aspartame, for human consumption,
masquerading as an additive. And it was perfectly all right for them to turn a deaf ear when they were
petitioned to ban aspartame in l986 by the Community Nutrition Institute because consumers were going
blind from the wood alcohol.

The FDA in this letter speaks of compliance with law. Yet, in l985, their own FDA toxicologist, the late Dr.
Adrian Gross, told Congress that aspartame violated Delaney Amendment because it triggered brain tumors
in lab animals. His last words were: "And if the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public?"
While the FDA speaks of adulteration have they not perverted the facts on aspartame? The brochure that
the FDA sends out on aspartame, pure propaganda, is answered and rebutted on www.dorway.com

In August l995 the FDA unveiled a program to push pharmacists to prepare special patient information
leaflets for every prescription they dispense. Yet, they do not consider it necessary to inform the consumer
public that the DRUG aspartame has 92 documented symptoms and interacts with other drugs including
monoamine oxidase inhibitors, alpha-methyldopa and L-dihydroxphenylalanine.

Just today, June 23 in the New York Times it says: "For the second time in two weeks, the Food and Drug
Administration has taken the rare step of pulling a prescription drug, ,,, The drug, Duract, a painkiller
manufactured by Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories of St. Davids, Pa has caused a dozen cases of serious liver
failure since it went on the market last July; four patients died and eight required liver transplants." Yet
aspartame has caused more deaths and more symptoms and more diseases. Because it destroys the central
nervous system (mimics MS), the brain (is escalating Alzheimers and other neurological horrors) and the
optic nerve, it may be that aspartame has caused more deaths than many wars.



Redux and FenPhen were banned because they were causing cardiac problems and death. Aspartame
causes cardiac problems and death. These three drugs alter serotonin. Did they react together and cause
death? On June 8 Posicor was banned because it turned out to be potentially lethal when used with a long
list of other drugs. Aspartame also interacts with drugs and potentially lethal, yet it is not banned!

In discussing the dangers of NutraSweet in Assault on Medical Freedom, P. Joseph Lisa wrote: "These
complaints all came to the FDA's attention. There were thousands of them. Yet the FDA did nothing to take
this apparently dangerous product off the market. In contrast the FDA took rather heavy-handed and drastic
actions against Herbalife for fewer than six complaints, according to the California Food and Drug files."



Upon signing the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act into law, President Clinton said: "The
passage of this legislation speaks to the determination of the legislators involved and I appreciate their
work. But most important, it speaks to the diligence with which an unofficial army of nutritionally conscious
people worked democratically to change the laws in an area deeply important to them." But the battle is not
over to save dietary supplements

G. M. Wolverton, M.D. in warning all patients off of NutraSweet said: "When you get the situation we now
have in Washington with vast reaching bureaus that are given awesome power (such as FDA has)
"Government," as George Washington said, "is not reason; government is not justice. Like fire, it is a
dangerous servant and fearful master!"

Dr. James Bowen in a statement to the FDA many years ago about aspartame said: "The recent revelations
about the problems surrounding generic drug approvals are compelling evidence of what happens when an
agency considers itself above the law in dealing with these matters. In my opinion, this has resulted in the
mass poisoning of the American public as well as seventy-plus countries in the rest of the world. Watching
FDA officials walk through the "revolving door" and be further rewarded by being promoted o other
positions of high public responsibility is clear evidence of a government out of control.

Twenty-six questions to the FDA listed on the DORway web site remain unanswered going on two years.
Congressman Newt Gingrich continues to demand these answers but FDA knows the facts would remove
the neurotoxin, aspartame, from the marketplace. It is quite evident that neither the FDA nor Monsanto want
competition from the healthy Stevia leaf.

[bobdrake12]

The FDA has consistently fought against the healthy Stevia Leaf. In a country founded on freedom you can go to the library and buy a book on how to make a bomb, or buy trashy pornography, but its illegal to tell the consumer public the history of the Stevia Leaf, and the fact that it is a sweetener and has health advantages.  Yet it is perfectly all right for the FDA to approve a chemical poison, aspartame, for human consumption, masquerading as an additive. And it was perfectly all right for them to turn a deaf ear when they were petitioned to ban aspartame in l986 by the Community Nutrition Institute because consumers were going blind from the wood alcohol.

The FDA in this letter speaks of compliance with law. Yet, in l985, their own FDA toxicologist, the late Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress that aspartame violated Delaney Amendment because it triggered brain tumors in lab animals. His last words were: "And if the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public?"  While the FDA speaks of adulteration have they not perverted the facts on aspartame? The brochure that the FDA sends out on aspartame, pure propaganda, is answered and rebutted on www.dorway.com

In August l995 the FDA unveiled a program to push pharmacists to prepare special patient information leaflets for every prescription they dispense. Yet, they do not consider it necessary to inform the consumer public that the DRUG aspartame has 92 documented symptoms and interacts with other drugs including monoamine oxidase inhibitors, alpha-methyldopa and L-dihydroxphenylalanine.

thefirstimmortal,

Thanks so much for the information on the healthy Stevia leaf.

I have included an article directly below regarding the DRUG aspartame.

bob

http://www.healthy.n...=Article&Id=530




How Safe is Aspartame?

© Michael Schachter M.D., F.A.C.A.M.

Aspartame is known commercially as "Nutrasweet" when added to products or "Equal" when it is in the form of a sugar substitute in a packet. It should not be confused with Sweet-n-Low, which is saccharine.

If you are one of the millions of Americans who is concerned about being overweight or about eating too much sugar, chances are you have eaten or drank products containing aspartame. You have been told by the FDA and the manufacturers of these products that they are perfectly safe. But, just how safe are they?

Just recently, I've been made aware of a large body of medical information questioning the safety of these products. If you use any diet sodas containing aspartame or any of the other thousands of products which contain it, I suggest you listen carefully because some of your physical, mental or emotional complaints may be due to their use.

Do you have any idea what percentage of all complaints received by the FDA are about aspartame? You probably will be as shocked as I was to learn that between 80 to 85% of all complaints received by the FDA are due to aspartame. By 1987, the FDA had received more than 6,000 complaints, including 250 involving epileptic seizures.

How much aspartame do Americans eat? The average American consumes over 14 pounds of aspartame each year and this amount has been rising daily. Since many of you out there and I avoid it completely, some of you are ingesting a lot more than 14 pounds per year. In April, 1993, aspartame was approved for use in baked goods and mixes which greatly added to the 4,200 products already containing the synthetic sweetener.

Symptoms which May be Due to Aspartame

What kinds of symptoms may occur as a result of ingesting aspartame? They may involve almost any system of the body. Probably the most common are headaches, including migraines. As I mentioned, one can also experience seizures. Some pilots have lost their licenses after having experienced seizures from aspartame. Several articles have appeared in flying magazines.

Other neurologic or psychiatric symptoms include dizziness, unsteadiness, confusion, severe drowziness and sleepiness, numbness, hyperactivity--especially in children, severe depression, irritability, anxiety, aggression, personality changes, insomnia and phobias.

Visual changes may include blurred vision, blindness, pain and reduced tears. Ringing or buzzing in the ears, hearing impairment or noise intolerance occur in some people. Palpitations, shortness of breath or recent high blood pressure may mimic a heart condition.

Other systems that can be affected are the gastrointestinal system, including diarrhea, nausea and abdominal pain; the skin, including itching and hives; and the endocrine system, including loss of control of diabetes, menstrual changes, marked weight loss or gain and aggravated low blood sugar.

To see if you are being affected by aspartame, eliminate all aspartame products for about two weeks. If some of your symptoms improve, you may then reintroduce aspartame and see if your symptoms return. If they do, you should probably eliminate aspartame entirely.

Mechanisms in the Biochemistry and Pharmacology of Aspartame which May Explain the Various Symptoms

Research over the past twenty years has shown that certain "natural" substances found in the body act as excitotoxins in the brain when found at high levels. These substances can overstimulate and kill brain cells, causing mild to severe brain damage. There has been speculation that this mechanism may help to explain such diseases as Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease and Lou Gehrig's Disease. Examples of neuroexcitatory toxins in high concentrations are monosodium glutamate, also known as MSG and components or breakdown products of aspartame. The effects of these substances are both additive and cumulative.

Aspartame consists of three molecules joined together. They are: (1) 50% phenyl alanine, an amino acid found in food, which can be neurotoxic in high quantities and can cause seizures in certain susceptible people; (2) 40% aspartic acid, also an amino acid found in food, which is a neuroexciter and neurotoxic in high concentrations; and (3) 10% methanol or methyl alcohol, which is also called wood alcohol. Free methanol is quite toxic even in relatively low concentrations.

The FDA and manufacturers response to the many expressed concerns of the damaging effects of methanol in aspartame is to point out that it occurs naturally in fruit juices and vegetables. They neglect to state that in these foods, the methanol is in a bound form and the human body does not have the digestive enzymes that breakdown the pectin and release the methanol into the bloodstream. In addition, natural methanol is always accompanied by ethanol in higher concentrations, which acts to protect the body against any damage. The methanol in aspartame is in free form and can be absorbed.

Some of the breakdown metabolic products of these substances are also toxic and carcinogenic. Thus, you can see that there are many possible mechanisms by which aspartame is potentially toxic and dangerous.

An additional concern about aspartame is that it tends to lower serotonin in the brain. Low brain serotonin levels are associated with depression. The FDA has banned the food supplement tryptophan, the essential amino acid responsible for making serotonin in the brain. With so much aspartame being used and no tryptophan available to increase brain serotonin levels, is it any wonder that the new anti-depressant serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs, such as Prozac, have become so popular.

Who is at risk for experiencing aspartame toxicity? At least 30% of the population is sensitive to moderate doses of aspartame and may suffer from any of the symptoms that I've previously discussed. Women are 3 times more likely to suffer symptoms and pregnant women may put their unborn babies at risk. The undeveloped nervous systems of children are more vulnerable to even mild doses. An example of a subpopulation of adults who may be more susceptible to symptoms are phenyl ketonuria or PKU carriers.

Phenyl ketonuria or PKU is an inherited disease in which babies lack an enzyme necessary to convert phenyl alanine to tyrosine. If given foods containing phenyl alanine, they accumulate excessive phenyl alanine in the brain, which results in permanent brain damage and mental retardation. Their parents are carriers of the disease and also have some difficulty metabolizing phenyl alanine. These carriers of PKU, of which there are between four and twenty million in the United States, are among those most susceptible to the toxic effects of aspartame.

The FDA & manufacturers of aspartame claim that all of the adverse symptoms reported are "anecdotal". Because it is common that a person will not experience noticeable illness from a short term usage of aspartame, this is taken as proof that there is no problem with safety. Unfortunately, this position ignores the fact that the effects of aspartame poisoning are cumulative.

If an approved drug had as many complaints as aspartame, it would have been removed from the market long ago. But, aspartame has been approved as a safe food additive and not a drug. The manufacturer does not have to track adverse reactions once the food additive has been approved, as in the case of new drugs. Aspartame was approved for use in dry foods and as a sugar substitute in 1981 and for soft drinks in 1983.

Prior to 1981, many questions had been raised about the scientific integrity of Searle, the company producing aspartame. The FDA was concerned that Searle had failed to submit important information, such as the possible link between brain tumors and aspartame in animal studies. In a recently published medical journal article, Dr. H.J. Roberts points out that since aspartame was introduced, there has been an enormous increase in the incidence of brain cancer in the United States, especially in children. He is the author of the book Aspartame (Nutrasweet): Is it Safe?

The history of the FDA approval process for this substance raises many questions about possible conflicts of interest. Suffice to say no less than 10 officials involved in the approval process took jobs with aspartame-related companies, soon after leaving their governmental posts.

In 1987, the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network was founded. They have put together a series of articles in a spiral-bound book called The Deadly Deception: Aspartame.

[thefirstimmortal]

(BobDrake12)In 1987, the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network was founded. They have put together a series of articles in a spiral-bound book called The Deadly Deception: Aspartame.

O'Rights, Thanks Bob, I was thinking I was going to be beating the FDA war drum alone.

[thefirstimmortal]

Originally, the FDA was formed under the mandate of the Pure Food and Drug Act which simply required that products be accurately labeled as to what their contents are and to actually contain those ingredients, which is a necessary regulation in order for consumers to make informed decisions.

However, this simple mandate has grown into a bureaucratic monster which has decreed itself the sole judge, jury, and prosecutor (with its own hit squads) on matters of medical efficacy.

Since Reich's time, and through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the FDA has consumed millions of taxpayer dollars to wage its war against natural approaches to health care.

The result is that our health care system is one big gigantic expensive mess, rife with official fraud, and a holocaust of victims due to the toxic and deadly side effects from ineffective "approved" drugs and horrific surgical mutilations. Nature, science, and compassion have been thrown out of the house of modern medicine, and the doors and windows have been barred shut, with armed guards posted outside.

In spite of the damage done to many individuals, clinics and small businesses, the natural health movement continues to fight back, through legal means and by pressuring their elected representatives to restrain the FDA. But the FDA has its own supporters in Congress, and wants even more power and authority, so that it can go out and even more thoroughly "search and destroy" the natural health movement. New legislation had been offered into the US Congress which would grant the FDA the more complete and sweeping police powers it wants. In 1993, several new Congressional bills were proposed: the Regulatory Enforcement Amendments for the existing Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (H1662, H2597, H3642, S1982, S2135). Their sponsors are long-time FDA supporters and recipients of pharmaceutical PAC "donations"Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan), Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), and Sen Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio).

The proposed legislation would grant to the FDA:

power to set arbitrarily low potency levels for vitamins and foodstuffs, and to forbid the sale of any vitamin or foodstuff which contained levels higher than the FDA mandates.

power to forcibly censor advertising of health claims in magazines and books.

power to embargo and destroy any imported product without proving its threat to the public health

power to issue its own subpoenas and to undertake warrantless searches, seizures, and electronic surveillance, based upon mere suspicion, without the need for court approval.

power to set its own punitive fines against anyone who fails to obey their demands -- up to $250,000 for individuals, and $2 million for businesses.

power to dictate to the Federal Trade Commission new regulations for censoring health claims in television and radio programs and advertisements.

power to pay informants a reward, up to $250,000, for reporting on suspected violators of FDA regulations.

Other related legislation was also proposed (SS732, S733, H940, Sen. Edward Kennedy sponsoring on behalf of the Clinton Administration), which would establish a "national registry and tracking system" for the vaccination of all infants and children, a prelude to the notorious "Smart Card" or "Health Identity Card", with total control over health care decisions by a centralized medical Big Brother. These bills, which are offered up in one version or another, year after year, mandate "social workers" to essentially become the new "health care police", calling upon every home in America, door to door, to "investigate" whether or not every child in residence would have all "mandatory vaccines".

If not, the child might be blocked from enrollment in school, or the parents charged with "child abuse", and the child forcibly taken away by the state for adoption. Already, legal attacks for "child neglect and abuse"have been mounted by social workers and medical authorities against parents opting for home-birth, and against parents refusing to inoculate their children with potentially dangerous experimental vaccines. Even breast-feeding mothers have had infants ripped from their arms, being charged with "child sexual abuse", by power-drunk "social workers", who did not approve of breast-feeding beyond two years.

Coupled with the new, national health insurance initiatives, we rapidly approach the creation of a politically-directed, centralized network of "health spys" and "health police", whose ultimate goal would be to root out any and all forms of natural health care, self-responsible health care, or anyone who would exhibit signs of independent-mindedness or "disobedience to authority" regarding basic matters of child-rearing, sexuality, education or health.

This is reminiscent of the KGB-neighborhood-spy systems of the communist nations, and the religious police of the fundamentalist Muslim nations. It is a clear and present danger to our democracy, given the fact that Americans today are prone to grant to white-coated "doctors" the same uncritical, unquestioning obedience as once was given to black-robed priests during the witch-burning period of history, or to communist-party functionaries during the Stalinist purges. Science, particularly medical science, is today the New Religion of Homo Normalis, and the witch hunt against heretic disobedient unbelievers is gathering steam.

[thefirstimmortal]

Clearly, unless our social reformers and health-care pioneers are allowed to move from the present suppressed "underground" situation, and practice their arts openly in the social marketplace, free from constant FDA-police harassment, there will be no real health reforms or pioneering health breakthroughs to reach the general public. The battle lines are drawn, but the outcome is not clear or certain at all. Hanging in the balance is nothing less than the future of our remaining freedoms, AND FOR SOME OF US, OUR LIVES AS WELL

Live Long and Well
William Constitition O'Rights
The First Immortal

[thefirstimmortal]

In recent years, there has been an upsurge of police activities in the USA, the nature of which most Americans would more readily associate with repressive dictatorships. We Americans have been educated to believe that democracy, due process, assumed innocence-until-proven-guilt, and Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure are the laws of the land. On paper, these protections are there; but in reality, these basic Constitutional rights and freedoms have been gradually and steadily eroded away by new laws, judicial rulings, and bureaucratic decrees. One of the lesser-known but more significant leaders of this assault on American freedom has been the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

[thefirstimmortal]

As early as the 1950s, the FDA was engaged in aggressively spying on health-care providers who employed medications and approaches which were not considered "acceptable" by mainstream orthodox medicine. Notably, it was and has been the American Medical Association (AMA) which has dominated ideas within the medical community, as well as nearly all legislation related to health care. If the AMA dislikes a particular health care approach, they work to banish such methods within hospitals, and to suspend the medical licenses of any doctor who employs them. They have often been able to rely upon state licensing boards and legislatures, and even the US Congress, to pass laws outlawing natural healing methods and the non-MD practitioner (such as midwives, herbalists or acupuncturists).

Failing here, the AMA and friends in the drug industry have relied upon their allies in the FDA to aggressively assault the advocates of natural treatment methods. Many new health care discoveries have thereby remained "underground", never being allowed to flower productively in the light of day. Inexpensive, non-toxic and unpatentable natural healing methods have never been seriously or honestly evaluated by the AMA-FDA pharmaceutical-dominated medical establishment. Instead, policemen have been called in to simply arrest and jail the offending practitioners, seize their files, mailing lists and other property, burn their books, and otherwise trample the US Constitution into the dirt.

[thefirstimmortal]

The FDA attempted to ban and burn Rodale's Organic Farming and Gardening magazine as "advertising literature" not covered by the First Amendment; many vitamin companies were advertising in it, and Rodale claimed -- to the annoyance of the chemical fertilizer and drug companies -- that the vitamin and nutrient values of plants were increased by use of natural-organic farming methods, thereby improving human health.

The FDA lost that case, but Rodale was forced to spend a fortune in legal fees to defend his right of free speech.

[bobdrake12]

Many new health care discoveries have thereby remained "underground", never being allowed to flower productively in the light of day. Inexpensive, non-toxic and unpatentable natural healing methods have never been seriously or honestly evaluated by the AMA-FDA pharmaceutical-dominated medical establishment.

The First Immortal,

It is difficult for the healthcare industry to get rich by deploying inexpensive treatments.

bob

[dataangel]

A dose of reality for you:

From a letter to the Lancet, Volume 354 (9172), (July 3, 1999), p 78:

Aspartame and the Internet
[Correspondence]

Zehetner, Anthony; McLean, Mark
Department of Endocrinology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney NSW 2145, Australia

Sir-Patients at our diabetes clinic have raised concerns about information on the internet about a link between the artificial sweetener aspartame and various diseases. Our research revealed over 6000 websites that mention aspartame, with many hundreds alleging aspartame to be the cause of multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosis, Gulf War syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, brain tumours, and diabetes mellitus, among many others. Virtually all of the information offered is anecdotal, from anonymous sources and is scientifically implausible. (emphasis mine)

Aspartame, a dipeptide composed of phenylalanine and aspartic acid linked by a methyl ester bond, is not absorbed, and is completely hydrolysed in the intestine to yield the two constituent aminoacids and free methanol. Opponents of aspartame suggest that the phenylalanine and methanol so released are dangerous. In particular, they assert that methanol can be converted to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, and thus cause metabolic acidosis and neurotoxicity.

Although a 330 mL can of aspartame-sweetened soft drink will yield about 20 mg methanol, an equivalent volume of fruit juice produces 40 mg methanol, and an alcoholic beverage about 60-100 mg. The yield of phenylalanine is about 100 mg for a can of diet soft drink, compared with 300 mg for an egg, 500 mg for a glass of milk, and 900 mg for a large hamburger. [1] Thus, the amount of phenylalanine or methanol ingested from consumption of aspartame is trivial, compared with other dietary sources. Clinical studies have shown no evidence of toxic effects and no increase in plasma concentrations of methanol, formic acid, or phenylalanine with daily consumption of 50 mg/kg aspartame (equivalent to 17 cans of diet soft drink daily for a 70 kg adult). [1,2]

The antiaspartame campaign purports to offer an explanation for illnesses that are prominent in the public eye. By targeting a manufactured chemical agent, and combining this with pseudoscience and selective reporting, the campaign makes complex issues deceptively simple. Sensational website names (eg, aspartamekills.com) grab the browser's attention and this misinformation is also widely disseminated via chat groups and chain e-mail.

People consult the internet about medical issues for various reasons and many users regard online sources as being authoritative and valid. The medical profession has a role in teaching our patients to be discriminating consumers of the information offered there.

*Anthony Zehetner, Mark McLean
Department of Endocrinology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney NSW 2145, Australia

REFERENCES
1. Aspartame. In: Gelman CR, Rumack BH, Hess AJ, eds. DRUGDEX® System. Englewood, Colorado: MICROMEDEX, 1998. Edition expires 1999.
2. Anon. ADA position statement: use of noncaloric sweeteners. Diabetes Care 1991;

[thefirstimmortal]

A dose of reality for you:

[/size]

Stay tuned for the upcoming discussion, about how Aspartame can cause harm to the brain and nerous system and their relationship to health.

Live Long and Well
William O'Rights[size=7]

[bobdrake12]

Stay tuned for the upcoming discussion, about how Aspartame can cause harm to the brain and nerous system and their relationship to health.

The First Immortal,

Is there scientific evidence (studies) to back this up this claim? If so, can you provide that information?

bob

[thefirstimmortal]

Is there scientific evidence (studies) to back this up this claim?  If so, can you provide that information?

bob

[/size][/color]

Oh Bob, You know I seldom take a position unless I can back it up with facts Yes, it is a well researched area. I'll be giving the Dataangel a large dose of reality.

William O'Rights
The Datadevil.[color=green][size=7]

[dataangel]

I can't wait =)

Oh and first immortal, the closing tags, i.e. the ones with slashes, go at the end, and the ones without go at the beginning. Either my browser is screwing up or you've had them swapped your last two posts.

[Mind]

Stay tuned for the upcoming discussion, about how Aspartame can cause harm to the brain and nerous system and their relationship to health.

I am staying closely tuned for this one. I avoid aspartame like the plague. The story of this chemical (nutrasweet) is very interesting. I usually do not subscribe to conspiracy theories but Monsanto had their mitts (and money) in the FDA and a few other research facilities to get this poison (nutrasweet) accepted by the government and general public.

I look foward to your posts O'rights.

[Mind]

Here is a little tidbit I read in Healthsmart today about
Aspartame/(Nutrasweet)

Excitotoxicity is the mechanism in which cortisol destroys brain cells. An ecitotoxin can be defined as a substance capable of stimulating brain cell function. Two food additives that have been implicated as excitotoxins are monosodium glutamate (MSG) and aspartame. Very similar to cortisol, continuous exposure to these and other excitotoxins causes calcium accumulation, increases inflammation and free radical production, and ultimately stimulates brain cells to death.

[thefirstimmortal]

What if someone were to tell you that a chemical added to food could cause brain damage in your children, and that this chemical could effect how your children’s nervous systems formed during development so that in later years they may have learning or emotional difficulties? What if there was scientific evidence that these chemicals could damage a critical part of the brain known to control hormones so that later in life your child might have endocrine problems? How would you feel?
Suppose evidence was presented to you strongly suggesting that the artificial sweetener in your diet soft drink may cause brain tumors to develop, and that the number of brain tumors reported since the wide-spread introduction of this artificial sweetener has risen dramatically? Would that affect your decision to drink these products and especially to allow your children to drink them? What if you could be shown overwhelming evidence that one of the main ingredients in this sweetener (aspartate) could cause the same brain lesions as MSG? Would that affect your buying decisions?

And finally, what if it could be demonstrated that all of these types of chemicals (called excitotoxins) could possibly aggravate or even precipitate many of the neurodegenerative brain diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, ALS, and Alzheimer’s disease? Would you be conerned if you knew that these excitotoxin food additives are a particular risk if you have ever had a stroke, brain injury, brain tumor, seizure, or have suffered from hypertension, diabetes, meningitis or viral encephalitis?

I would think that all of us would be more than just concerned to learn that well known powerful brain toxins were being added to our food and drink to boost sales. We would be especially upset to learn that these additives have no other purpose than to enhance the taste of food and the sweetness of various diet products.

You would also be upset to learn that many of these brain lesions in your children are irreversible and can follow a single exposure of a sufficient concentration. And I would bet that you would be incredulous to learn that the food industry disguises many of these “excitotoxin additives” so that they will not be recognized. In fact, many foods that are labeled “No MSG” not only contain MSG, but also contain other excitotoxins of equal potency.

[thefirstimmortal]

Oh and first immortal, the closing tags, i.e. the ones with slashes, go at the end, and the ones without go at the beginning. Either my browser is screwing up or you've had them swapped your last two posts.

Your browser is fine, my computer skills are not:)

[thefirstimmortal]

For thousands of years Japanese cooks have added a special ingredient to their recipes to magnify the desired taste of foods. This ingredient was made from a sea weed known as “sea tangle” or kombu. Yet, it was only in this century that the active chemical of this “taste enhancing” ingredient was isolated. Most of you will immediately recognize the chemical which has this almost magical property, it’s called monosodium glutamate, or MSG.

Shortly after its isolation, the chemists who discovered MSG turned it into a worldwide multi-million dollar industry. At the center of this empire is the Ajinomoto Company which today produces most of the world’s supply of MSG and a related taste-enhancing substance called hydrolyzed vegetable protein, which also contains MSG.

After World War II, American food manufacturers also discovered the virtues of this taste-enhancing substance. Soon all of the giants of the food industry, such as Pillsbury, Oscar Mayer, Libby’s and Campbell’s, were adding millions of pounds of MSG each year to processed foods. At the time of its discovery, it was thought to be perfectly safe, since it was a natural substance (an amino acid).

The amounts of MSG and similar additives being added to foods increased throughout the post-war period. In fact, the amount of MSG alone added to foods has doubled in every decade since the 1940’s. By 1972 262,000 metric tons of MSG were produced. Many cookbooks recommended adding MSG to their recipes, especially for soups and sauce recipes.
Throughout this period, few suspected that these taste enhancing additives could be doing serious harm to individuals eating these foods.

[thefirstimmortal]

By the end of the 1960’s, research data began to appear demonstrating the dangers of MSG as a food additive. This scientific data should have alerted those responsible for public safety to the danger.

Until this time, neuroscientists assumed that glutamate supplied the brain with energy. Based on this idea scientists in one clinical study, fed large doses of MSG to retarded children to see if it would improve their IQ The experiment failed. Then, in 1957, two ophthalmologists, Lucas and New-house, decided to test MSG on infant mice in an effort to study an eye disease known as hereditary retinal dystrophy. But, when they examined the eye tissues of the sacrificed animals, they made a startling discovery. The MSG had destroyed all of the nerve cells in the inner layers of the animal’s retina which are the visual receptor cells of the eye.

Despite this frightening discovery, MSG continued to be added to food in enormous amounts and cookbooks continued to recommend it as a taste enhancing additive for recipes. But the worst was yet to be disclosed about this compound. Some ten years later John W. Olney, MD, a neuroscientist working at the Department of Psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, repeated Lucas and Newhouse’s experiment in infant mice.

His findings indicated that MSG was not only toxic to the retina, but also to the brain. When he examined the animals’ brains he discovered that specialized cells in a critical area of the animals’ brain, the hypothalamus, were destroyed, after a single dose of MSG.

The implications of Dr. Olney’s findings should have been earth-shaking to say the least. Why? Because millions of babies all over the world were eating baby foods containing large amounts of MSG and hydrolyzed vegetable protein (a compound which contains three excitotoxins). In fact, the concentrations of MSG found in baby foods was equal to that used to create brain lesions in experimental animals. And in all of these experiments, immature animals were found to be much more vulnerable to the toxic effects of MSG than were older animals. This was true in all animal species tested.

Yet, food manufacturers continued to add tons of this excitotoxic additive to foods of all kinds, including baby foods. Even the government’s public health watch-dog agency, the Food and Drug Administration, refused to take action. Dr. Olney, one of the leading researchers in this area, felt compelled to do something to protect unsuspecting mothers and their infants from this danger. First he informed the FDA of the real danger to human infants and encouraged them to take action. But they refused (so much for Mangalas assertion that the FDA protects us). His only recourse was to go public with what he knew to be true, that MSG was a dangerous compound that should not be added to infant foods. It was only after his testimony before a Congressional committee that the food manufacturers agreed to remove MSG from baby foods. But did they really?
Instead of adding pure MSG they added a substance known as hydrolyzed vegetable protein that contains three known excitotoxins and has added MSG. As we shall see later this substance is even more dangerous than MSG. They continued this practice for seven more years, and there is evidence that excitotoxins are still added to baby foods today. Usually these are in the form of caseinate, beef or chicken broth, or flavoring.

[thefirstimmortal]

Experimentally we know that the brain is extremely vulnerable to excitotoxins even at this stage of development.
It is hypothesized by some neuroscientists that exposure to these powerful compounds early in life could cause developmental brain defects that would produce learning difficulties and behavioral problems as the child grows older. There is also some evidence that it may contribute to violent behavior as well.

In experimental animals “MSG babies” are found to be short in stature, obese, and to have difficulty reproducing. This effect only becomes evident long after the initial MSG exposure. More detailed studies have found that “MSG babies” have severe disorders involving several hormones normally produced by the hypothalamus.

Unfortunately, MSG is not the only taste enhancing food additive known to cause damage to the nervous system. In fact, there is a whole class of chemicals that can produce very similar damage, they all share one important property. When neurons are exposed to these substances, they become very excited and fire their impulses very rapidly until they reach a state of extreme exhaustion. Several hours later these neurons suddenly die, as if the cells were excited to death. As a result, neuroscientists have dubbed this class of chemicals “excitotoxins”.

Several of these “excitotoxins” are man made and are used as research tools. Others are found in nature, such as glutamate, aspartate and cysteine, all of which are amino acids. MSG is a modified form of glutamic acid in which sodium is added to the molecule. But the toxic portion is the glutamic acid, not the sodium. Often food manufacturers will mix MSG with other substances to disguise it, or use substances known to contain high concentrations of glutamate and/or aspartate. For example, the label designation “natural flavoring” may contain anywhere from 20 to 60 percent MSG.

Earlier I mentioned a substance called hydrolyzed vegetable protein, also referred to as vegetable protein or plant protein. This powerful excitotoxin mixture is often portrayed as a perfectly safe and “natural” substance. “After all,” manufacturers say, “it’s made from plants.”

Actually, this mixture is made from “junk” vegetables that are unfit for sale. They are especially selected so as to have naturally high contents of glutamate. The extraction process of hydrolysis involves boiling these vegetables in a vat of acid. This is followed by a process of neutralization with caustic soda. The resulting product is a brown sludge that collects on the top. This is scraped off and allowed to dry. The end product is a brown powder that is high in three known excitotoxins,-glutamate, aspartate, and cystoic acid (which converts in the body to cysteine). It is then added by the food industry to everything from canned tuna to baby food.

[thefirstimmortal]

So what is it that these “excitotoxins” actually do that is so important to the food manufacturers? All of these chemicals stimulate the taste cells in the tongue, thereby greatly enhancing the taste of whatever food to which it is added. It is what gives soups the scrumptious taste that we all love so much. Today they are used extensively in sauces, soups, gravy mixes, and especially frozen diet foods. Low fat foods are often tasteless. To help sell them to the public, food manufacturers add “excitotoxin” taste enhancers to these foods to improve the taste.

[Limitless]

I take a keen interest in this topic. The food industry will one day go the way of big tobacco. Not that the tobacco industry's fate has been decided yet. (More on that at some later date.) However, great liability will exist. Mr. O'Rights, could you provide any specific links related to any conspiracies regarding MSG, aspartame, and any other ecitotoxins? (If you could, that would be great-when you have the time, of course) Also, besides thanking you for drawing more attention to the problem, -could you propose any sort of action/plan that could take place to improve the situation? I say this because this site seems very good at recognizing problems, but a little thin at forming any concrete plans of action. Does anyone have any ideas? Or is "Stewing in your own juice" working for you? It never has for me.

One more thing Mr. O'Rights-I'm glad I read in the "FDA Tyranny in Action" thread, in your post to Mangala, that you always eventually respond to things, when you have the time. I'm just mentioning this because it's been about 3 weeks since you said you'd respond to my fairly-longish post, in the FDA Tyranny in Action thread. (You know the one.) If you haven't had the time so far, or are busy thinking about whatever, -that's fine. I was just wondering when you think you'll be able to respond.


Cheers,


Limitless

[thefirstimmortal]

Another excitotoxin additive that is familiar to all of us is the artificial sweetener NutraSweet®. Actually, 40 percent of the compound is composed of the excitotoxin aspartate. Like glutamate, aspartate is a powerful brain toxin which can produce similar neuron damage. NutraSweet® is used in many diet foods and beverages. It is well recognized that liquid forms of excitotoxins are much more toxic to the brain than dry forms as they are absorbed faster and produce higher blood levels than when mixed with solid foods.

[Limitless]

[huh] It seems our posts are almost instantaneous, today. How surprised I was, to see that my post was dwarfed by yours on the opening screen, -before I had the time to see it there. What is this post about? Absolutely nothing...... Oh yeah-my other post in this thread (responding to your posts) is hidden behind yours. [blink]

[thefirstimmortal]

Mr. O'Rights, could you provide any specific links related to any conspiracies regarding MSG, aspartame, and any other ecitotoxins? (If you could, that would be great-when you have the time, of course) Also, besides thanking you for drawing more attention to the problem, -could you propose any sort of action/plan that could take place to improve the situation?

I'm not sure that I'm going to end up supporting a conspiracy theory before I am done. But I do have much more to say on this.
Propose a plan, I give this some thought.

[thefirstimmortal]

One more thing Mr. O'Rights-I'm glad I read in the "FDA Tyranny in Action" thread, in your post to Mangala, that you always eventually respond to things, when you have the time. I'm just mentioning this because it's been about 3 weeks since you said you'd respond to my fairly-longish post, in the FDA Tyranny in Action thread. (You know the one.) If you haven't had the time so far, or are busy thinking about whatever, -that's fine. I was just wondering when you think you'll be able to respond.

[size]
As much as I would love to give you a time frame, I cannot. I am woefully behind in keeping up with this site. [wacko] My case that was fought on Nov. 1st went into overtime. We finished the case, but because of my extensive cross examination of the officer on a second issue, the case that started at 1:30 went till 5:00. the court was not authorized for overtime, but allowed me to deliver my closing argument in a brief. (I'll post those here for your viewing). The Judge had never read such a long brief (original brief) with so much case law. The two State lawyers had never had a defendant pro se go toe to toe with them, and were thrown off guard. The officer was a little stunned also. I had a great time, but I am preparing an appeal in case the Judge does not agree with me, and rules the other way. In addition to all this, after winning Nationals, I qualified for World Finals, and am preparing to set a world record (I failed last year), in a dB Drag racing event. I won the World Championship last year, but I'm a-hearing that it's going to be more competitive this year. I leave for a 3,000 mile trip in about a week. I feel that I need to reread the whole Capital v. Social thread, disect it and at least get a few posts in there before I return to yours. But don't be afraid to reremind me. You know what they say about the squeaky wheel

[size=7]

[thefirstimmortal]

Your Honor, With respect to the Plate Case, we are not suggesting to this Court that the officer manufactured the whole case, we are not even suggesting to this court that the plate was not on the vehicle at the time of the original stop. So if the court can properly find that it is still more likely than not that the plate was indeed on the car at the time of the stop, why should this Court rule in favor of the Defendant?

Credibility

The truth will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not the truth.

A lie will not fit anything except another lie.



The defense challenges the sufficiency of the evidence based on witness credibility.

We hold that the details of the investigation process affect the officer’s credibility. This case has been compromised, it is a tainted case. When government entities--especially the police--act without virtue they should lose credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the Court, and Courts which sit under our Constitution should not be made party to wrongful actions.


We are asking this Court to strike all of Mr. Wagnor's testimony with respect to the plate case (not for the sound case) for the following reasons.

Officer Wagnor took an oath, to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Is that what he did? Can this Court truely find that in light of some of his testimony that he was 100 percent forthcoming, 100 percent frank and honest with the Court? It is impermissible to suggest that the officer has a built in credibility, see State v. Gribbon (1976) Me., 360 A.2d 517.

We hold that some of the officer's testimony was so outrageous that it is incredible as a matter of law. This Court should find his testimony to be inherently improbable and incredible.

This Court is being asked to believe that the defendant, by the officers own testimony, invoked his constitutional right to not incriminate himself by not answering the officers questions (and continued to excercise his 5th Amendment Right during the trial), then refused to comply with the officers demand/request to put the plate on the car, yet somehow we are expected to believe that the officer made a nice polite request for the defendant to let the kind officer put the plate on the car to manufacture evidence, and the defendant voluntarily complied with that request. When asked if the defendent informed him that "I do not want that plate on the car.", the officer did not remember. The defendant, in anticipation of the well known testifying strategy "I do not recall" asked at the begining of the case, in questions 3 and 4 respectively,

3 Do you understand that part of your oath to tell the truth, also includes not lying by omission.
4 Officer, you don't intend on using the phrase "I Do not recall" to address any questions that you feel would not be benificial to your case do you?

True, the officer did not use the term "I do not recall" he used "I do not remember" but by putting lipstick on his answer, does not change the fact that he was being evasive. We all know that sometimes witnesses answer I do not recall because they truely do not recall, and it is also well known that this answer is sometimes employed by officers to evade answering questions that would not help one's case.

The officers testimony becomes more unbelievable in the light of the fact that the officer who was at the first hearing getting ready to testify, sat through a motion hearing in which the defendant argued a discovery motion for the photo's and claimed that the officer manufactured the evidence. To not recall that is amazing beyond belief. If that allegation were untrue, all the more reason to remember it. Are we to believe that the allegation was thrown out there, and the officer not only did not hear it, but that no discussion took place between the State's Attorney and the officer about this matter? Isn't it more probable that the officer did not inform the Court that the photo's did not exist because the officer had the photos with him as he was prepared to testify that day?

To compound this problematic issue is that the very officer who is alleged to have manufactured evidence, somehow couldn't retrieve the evidence after it was known that the issue of manufacturing evidence would become an issue at trial. The testimony was that there was a problem with the software, this mordern day version of "the dog ate my homework" should be viewed in the light of the officers motive to make sure this evidence could not be used against him. This Court should consider the motive which the witness may have had, and the temptation he had to give false testimony. This Court has the right in both civil and criminal cases to consider the interest which the witness may have in the case in which he is testifying. It is within the province of the Court to pass up on the testimony given by this witness.

This Court's evaluation may also include consideration of such factors as "appearance and demeanor of the witness while testifying". State v. Miller, Me., 252 A.2d 321, 326 (1969). In this case, the Demeanor while testifying in the sound case, and all through the cross examination of the sound case, the officer remained calm, made eye contact, was composed, and appeared forthright, kindly, marvelously poised, unpretentiously compelling-in short, wonderful. That visibly changed to fidgiting with his nails, looking down at his lap, avoiding eye contact, and becoming visibly flustered and had a flush face when testifying about the manufacturing and destruction of evidence, and the mysteriously unavailable pictures. To be believed, we must be believable. To be believable, we must tell the truth.


When the sole witness intentionally manufactures and then later destroys evidence, the appropriate remedy is to dismiss the case, or at the very least, strike all the testimony of the witness who acted wrongly.

Even in the absence of bad faith or willful conduct you may take the failure to preserve this evidence as indicating that among the inferences which may have been drawn from this evidence, those inferences most favorable to the defendant are the more probable. And that inference is that the Officer manufactured the evidence.

Another reason why this court should not find for the State is the CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE -

Under the clean hands doctrine, a person who has acted wrongly, either morally or legally - that is, who has 'unclean hands' - will not be helped by a court when complaining about the actions of someone else. Although that doctrine is more commonly applied to a Plaintiff who is seeking damages, it calls for everyone to be free from any unlawful conduct with respect to the case. In this case, although Officer Wagnor is not the Plaintiff per say, the State is the plaintiff, but Officer Wagnor is not a simple witness, he is also acting as an Agent of the State and acting under the color of law, and so we feel that this Doctrine is applicable to this case.

This court has a grand reservoir of power to do justice in a particular case, and we are asking this court to find that the State should not be rewarded today, because the sole witness did not come to Court today with Clean Hands.

With respect to the plate case, we hold that this Court should be unwilling to dip its hands into the slime.