ALTERNATIVE SWEETNERS | ADHD Information

Oh - and I was JUST watching the news this afternoon and they mention there has just been completed a very exhausting scientific study of Aspartame. They found NO connection between cancer and aspartame!! I'll find the details and post them. Another nail in the hoax coffin. Muah ha ha ha!!

And here it is!! Read and learn.

Study allays aspartame fears Research on humans finds no solid link to cancer

Marilynn Marchione The Associated Press

Thursday, April 06, 2006

WASHINGTON - A huge federal study in people -- not rats -- takes the fizz out of arguments that the diet soda sweetener aspartame might raise the risk of cancer.

No increased risk was seen even among people who gulped down many artificially sweetened drinks a day, said researchers who studied the diets of more than half a million older Americans.

A consumer group praised the study, done by reputable researchers independent of any funding or ties to industry groups.

"It goes a fair way toward allaying concerns about aspartame," said Michael Jacobson, head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which had urged the U.S. government to review the sweetener's safety after a troubling rat study last year.

Findings were reported Tuesday at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Aspartame came on the market 25 years ago and is found in thousands of products.

Italian researchers last year reported results of the largest animal study done on aspartame, involving 1,800 lab rats. Females developed more lymphomas and leukemias on aspartame than those not fed the sweetener.

The new study, by scientists at the National Cancer Institute, involved 340,045 men and 226,945 women, ages 50 to 69, participating in a research project by the National Insitutes of Health and AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons.

From surveys they filled out in 1995 and 1996, researchers calculated how much aspartame they consumed, especially from sodas or from sweetener in coffee or tea.

Over the next five years, 2,106 developed blood-related cancers such as lymphoma or leukemia, and 376 developed brain tumours. No link was found to aspartame consumption for these cancers in general or for specific types, said Unhee Lim, who reported the study's findings.

The dietary information was collected before the cancers developed.

"It's very reassuring. It's a large study with a lot of power," said Richard Adamson, a senior science consultant to the American Beverage Association.

© The Edmonton Journal 2006 it doesn't sound that reassuring to me - no link was found. well that could just mean they didn't bother to look, couldn't it - reputable researchers?? (oops edited as i read it properly in fact it does say who they are)

but those 'd be the same kind of reputable researchers who insisted there was no link between BSE and that brain rot disease, hmm? until they changed their mind a couple of years later (although weirdly enough i don't think there is a link). or the same sort of doctors/researchers who used to promote "lucky strike" brand as best for your health! or the ones who said formula milk is so much better than breast milk (not paid for by nestle - of course not...)

... a consumer group - does it have a name? or is this a top-secret consumer group??? i mean c'mon here....

and as for the other article how on earth are you supposed to trust the neutrality of research paid for by:

The study was conducted at MIT's CRC. Electro-encephalograms were done at the Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. This work was supported by a grant from the NutraSweet Co. to the Center for Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable Trust..

although i never drink sodas so it's not my problem....

slurp away!
chjones38845.7192361111[QUOTE=GlenW]Oh - one more thing. The reason I am so against this kind of unfounded attack on a safe consumer product is that this is the kind of trash science used against the ADHD meds I and many others use daily. It hurts everyone when bad science is used to make a point.[/QUOTE]

but more often than not, the scientology-based attackers of ADD use exactly the opposite tactic. affirming that there is no scientific evidence of ADHD as a disease. that it is just a list of disorders 'made up' etc. etc.

that scientists can prove diseases such as malaria or whatever but there is no scientific proof to assert that ADHD exists outside of a 'pharmalogical/psychiatric profiteering con'. etc. etc. with no real logical, definitive science or concrete factors to support it.

out of interest glen - would you say you are psychologically addicted to Adderall or not? i'm just curious. for such a law-abiding bloke (even considered a 'nark' by your co-workers) i was quite surprised to read that you would continue to find a way to take Adderall even if it were made illegal, in one of your older posts when i was searching on something. do you think that constitutes psychological addiction or not?

i guess it depends what psychological addiction actually means.

not that it matters - unless Adderall does get taken off the market. was just interested in what you thought.

[QUOTE=chjones] it doesn't sound that reassuring to me - no link was found. well that could just mean they didn't bother to look, couldn't it - reputable researchers?? (oops edited as i read it properly in fact it does say who they are)

but those 'd be the same kind of reputable researchers who insisted there was no link between BSE and that brain rot disease, hmm? until they changed their mind a couple of years later (although weirdly enough i don't think there is a link). or the same sort of doctors/researchers who used to promote "lucky strike" brand as best for your health! or the ones who said formula milk is so much better than breast milk (not paid for by nestle - of course not...)

... a consumer group - does it have a name? or is this a top-secret consumer group??? i mean c'mon here....

and as for the other article how on earth are you supposed to trust the neutrality of research paid for by:

The study was conducted at MIT's CRC. Electro-encephalograms were done at the Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. This work was supported by a grant from the NutraSweet Co. to the Center for Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable Trust..

All very good points Chjones!

although i never drink sodas so it's not my problem....

slurp away!

Sorry, that just cracked me up but it really isn't funny!
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=GlenW]

I found a link that debunks a lot of this. It seems that it started with chain emails (probably the same people trying to say febreeze killed housepets). It's long and I can't cut and paste it right - here's the link and I'll shorten it for everyone:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

It lists one of the letters that went around. It's a fear tactic used often (for a lot of people if they see it on the internet it just MUST be true!) and gets a lot of press.

It lists the reasons it's NOT true. They include the FDA not finding any plausible links to any risks with Aspartame, the American Council on Science and Health which describes the hoax going around, The chain letter scaring people by huckster Dr. Dean Edell (he sells snake oil on US and Canadian radio), an MIT study reaffirming the safety of Aspartame and a link to TIME magazines' article on the hoax of Aspartame Toxicity.

It's bunk. It's always been that when people are angry or sick they want a complicated conspiracy rather than bad things happen to good people. It's sad but this is the truth. Aspartame is safe and that's that.

[/QUOTE]

Sarita posted some very reputable links not connected with "snake oil" salesmen and you seem to ignore them.

Glen, Are you hearing what you say? "Bad things happen to good people." So we should accept that and keep shoving whatever companies produce into our mouths as long as the FDA says it is safe, no questions asked? My gosh do you read the labels on processed foods?

Why do bad things happen to people? Don't you ever ask yourself why???? I do. People are getting cancer more and more. Why? Why did my Mom get cancer? There has to be a reason Glen! Really, you need to be a little more open minded. Just a teeny tiny bit will do fine.

Now where is Sarita with that answer as to how aspartame turns into formaldehyde in ones body.

Why post this here oldtimer? More for alternatives.

There has been a lot of talk about aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. It's just talk.

Study after study shows that artificial sweeteners don't have any long term effects that show up in lab studies on animals or people. It happened with sweet n' low (saccharin) and they showed the original tests in the '60s and '70s were flawed (used 10,000 times the dose on rats) and now are allowed with warnings that may be not as safe if you aren't diabetic.

Many tests show that natural white sugar is not good especially for kids and that using alternate sugar substitutes are beneficial to avoid jeuvenile diabetes and other ailments (sucrose syndrome for one).

I know people that drink many nutra-sweet drinks a day and eat foods with it in it all the time - and have since the '80s. No outbreaks in certain cancers or other problems. Shouldn't we see something?

By the way - molasses is simply beet sugar that is extra heated and uses the pulps left over and isn't better for you (some feel worse than) than white sugar. There is a rogers sugar plant across the street from my job and I talked to the workers. Brown sugar is white sugar with added molasses and color. It's all beet sugar and none are better than any other. Just thought you'd all like to know that. The sugar in honey is simply a different extraction and gets the same doses as white as well. Sugar is sugar is sugar.

GET FROM HEALTH STORES .

STEVIA OR XYLITOL OUR USE PURE HNEY OR MOLASSES INSTEAD.

GREAT NATURAL REPLACEMENTS.

oldtimer38836.2228935185 [QUOTE=GlenW]

Why post this here oldtimer? More for alternatives.

There has been a lot of talk about aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. It's just talk.

[/QUOTE]

I've been drinking Tab and Diet Coke for at least 20 of my 33 years. No problems that I'm aware of!

I've read a lot of information about the alleged toxicity of aspartame, but I'm not buying it. I think we'd see some proof if that was truly the case.

Supposedly Splenda was the new miracle sweetner when it came about, but I'm not a fan of the taste. I've also read studies about how it affects the glucose levels in some diabetics (much like sugar).

By far the greatest evil out there in terms of sweetener/sugar is HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup). It's in so many of the foods we eat every day (bread, soda, cereals, granola bars and a million others) and it is NASTY stuff!

HFCS basically goes straight to the liver and the body stores it as fat (simplified version). The glycemic load is more than double that of refined sugar. Many scientists are claiming it's behind the weight problem in America.

Just thought I'd share. FYI, I drink several Diet Cokes a day, but I managed to cut out all HFCS (and most refined sugar period) last year and have felt like a new man! I also dropped about thirty pounds in under six months.
Oh well I am a Splenda junkie if that does not kill me my diabetes, Asthma,and cholesterol will. Getting hit by a bus will too.

[QUOTE=GlenW]

There has been a lot of talk about aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. It's just talk.

Study after study shows that artificial sweeteners don't have any long term effects that show up in lab studies on animals or people. I know people that drink many nutra-sweet drinks a day and eat foods with it in it all the time - and have since the '80s. No outbreaks in certain cancers or other problems. Shouldn't we see something?[/QUOTE]

I've seen something. A friend of my fathers drank 2 leters of soda that contained aspartame in it every day for a number of years. He started becoming disoriented and it got progressively worse.

He had a cat scan done and a tumor was found. A nutritionist told him that is was most likely caused by his consumption of aspartame.

My Grandmother was a diabetic and she used Saccharine all the time in everything, she baked a lot with it and used it in beverages, cereal, etc.

She eventually developed lung cancer..She never smoked a cigarette a day in her life, and was never exposed to smoke either. My gut feeling is that it was the saccharine that caused her cancer..she did eventually die from it.

I just like to use natural foods as much as possible. I use sugar and honey sparingly and I never eat anything with artificial sweeteners in them. I just don't like the sound or thought of eating something that is "artificial" or "chemical". Makes me loose my appetite.

bepatient38840.3033333333

I think we already had this debate about aspartame on another thread. But I'm with Bepatient. I don't like artificial anything if I can help it and prefer to keep sugar out of my diet completely but do fail on that one.

However, I don't agree with Oldtimer that we need sugar so guess I agree with Glen.

Bepatient, My Mom has COPD (last stages) which is typically associated with smoking just as lung cancer often is, however my Mom never smoked or used an artificial sweetener ever.

I noticed none of the doctors of your friends dad suggested it was the aspartame and I really question what kind of nutritionalist blamed the aspartame. Sounds a bit fishy to me.

But, on the other hand we are getting cancer and illnesses left and right so something is causing it and I suspect some day we will all be surprised at what science finds out - and probably way too late for many of us. So I'll stick with the natural and organic stuff, thank you very much.

The diet I mentioned is the one my friends Dr. who has diabetes type one was put on.

Aspartame and Nutrasweet Toxicity Info Center

Detailed scientific and general documentation regarding the toxicity of nutrasweet, Equal, diet coke, diet pepsi, and other aspartame containing items. Web page includes real life reports of acute and chronic toxicity due to long-term ingestion. Also included is extensive scientific and general information and resources.

NOTICE: If the length of some of these nutrasweet files is causing difficulty retrieving documents from this site, please connect to the split-file page where the long files are split up. Questions? Case Histories.

For more information on diet and nutrition, substances that cause serious health problems and on health-building techniques, please see the articles section of the main health page. What's New on this Page! Aspartame Toxicity Reaction Samples - Internet - Updated 01/26/06 Healthier Sweeteners Resource List -- PLEASE DO NOT switch from one toxic sweetener to another News: Analysis shows Nearly 100% of Independent Research Finds Problems With Aspartame Monsanto's Toxic New World (Frankenfoods, Terminator Famines, rBGH & Cancer) New! Aspartame ... Neotame -- By Any Name, It's Still a Neurotoxin New! Aspartame / Nutrasweet Documents Aspartame Toxicity Reactions & Health Damage Cases Nutrasweet Toxicity Reaction Samples - Internet - Updated 01/26/06 Nutrasweet Toxicity Reaction Samples - US Mail - Updated 04/23/03 Scientific / Historic Information Section Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) With Referenced Answers New!
Update (Dec 9, 1998) on Formaldehyde Toxicity From Monsanto's sweetener: aspartame DRAFT Review - Updated 12/05/95 (Binhexed MS Word 5.1 for MAC Version) DRAFT Review - Updated 12/05/95 (ASCII/Plain Text Version) Individual Chapters of NutraSweet Review DRAFT Aspartame and Brain Cancer -- Short Response to Recent Monsanto PR Response to the U.K. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals Document (nutrasweet) New! General Documents Section Healthier Sweetener Resources Nutrasweet Is Bad For Everyone (Long-Term Use) Aspartame Detoficiation Short Aspartame Article - Updated 4/1/95 (ASCII/Plain Text) 5 Simple Steps to Help Yourself & Others Avoid Chronic Aspartame Poisoning Advanced Steps to Help Stop Chronic Poisoning Aspartame Dangers in Pregnancy Nutrition & Healing Magazine Interviews aspartame Expert - 11/95 List of Nutrasweet - Related Books and Organizations Short Adverse Reaction Questionnarie List of Companies Selling "Products" With Aspartame After Being Made Aware of Dangers (General Mills, Cocacola, Twinlabs, etc.) Vision Damage From Aspertame Aspartame and Lawsuits (Poisoning Victims Begin Filing Lawsuits!) New! Other Dangerous Sweeteners Section Sucralose/Splenda Information Acesulfame-K/Sunette/Sweet One Toxicity Information Acesulfame-K (Sweet One) - Expert Statements (CSPI Web Page) Recent News & Editorial Section Analysis Shows Nearly 100% of Independent Research Finds Problems With Aspartame India Issues Nationwide Aspartame (Nutrasweet) Warning Important Links Section Aspartame Victims Support Group Aspartame -- Mission Possible Radio Programs in Real Audio! Aspartame Consumer Safety Network (ACSN) Homepage Dr. H.J. Roberts, World Aspartame Expert -- Highly Recommended Books Dr. Russell L. Blaylock's Book - "Excitotoxins" Dave Rietz' Extensive Aspartame Web Pages NutraMancer City -- Stroll Around Town! (Swankin & Turner Page) Good Bunny Homepage! More Useful Aspartame Links From Dave Rietz' Page Ban Aspartame Web Page (Greece) Sweet Poison (NutraSweet) by Alex Constantine The Bitter Truth About Artificial Sweeteners (Nexus Magazine) Aspartame and Multiple Sclerosis (From Dave Q's MS Recovery Web pages) Acesulfame-K (Sweet One) - Expert Statements (CSPI Web Page)

Back to Health Page

http://www.trufax.org/webring.html

Toxicity Effects of Aspartame Use Selection of adverse effects from short-term and/or long-Term use

Note: It often takes at least sixty days without *any* aspartame or nutrasweet to see a significant improvement. Improvement in health is also often accompanied by weight loss. Check all labels very carefully (including vitamins and pharmaceuticals). Look for the word "aspartame" on the label and avoid it. (Also, it is a good idea to avoid "acesulfame-k" or "sunette.") Finally, avoid getting nutrition information from junk food industry PR organizations such as IFIC or organizations that accept large sums of money from the junk and chemical food industry such as the American Dietetic Association.

seizures and convulsions dizziness tremors migraines and severe headaches (Trigger or Cause From Chronic Intake) memory loss (common toxicity effects) slurring of speech confusion numbness or tingling of extremities chronic fatigue depression insomnia irritability panic attacks (common aspartame toxicity reaction) marked personality changes phobias rapid heart beat, tachycardia (another frequent reaction) asthma chest pains hypertension (high blood pressure) nausea or vomitting diarrhea abdominal pain swallowing pain itching hives / urticaria other allergic reactions blood sugar control problems (e.g., hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia) menstrual cramps and other menstraul problems or changes impotency and sexual problems food cravings weight gain hair loss / baldness or thinning of hair burning urination & other urination problems excessive thirst or excessive hunger bloating, edema (fluid retention) infection susceptibility joint pain brain cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals) death Aspartame Disease Mimmicks Symptoms or Worsens the Following Diseases fibromyalgia arthritis multiple sclerosis (MS) parkinson's disease lupus multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) diabetes and diabetic Complications epilepsy alzheimer's disease birth defects chronic fatigue syndrome lymphoma lyme disease attention deficit disorder (ADD and ADHD) panic disorder depression and other psychological disorders

Thank You To These & Other Archives For Listing My Site AAA World Announce Archive

Keywords nutrisweet aspertame nutri sweet nutri-sweet Monsanto Kelco Benevia equal Equal's Million Dollar Difference Giveaway Team Equal Equal Measure spoonful diet soda diet coke diet pepsi diet sprite pepsi light pepsi max crystal light sweeteners sugar artificial sweetener acesulfame-k sucralose sunette sunnette sweet one sweet & safe splenda stevia stevioside Canderel Chuker Misura Manugel Keltrol Kelcogel Nutrifos Stabil-9 Levn-Lite ethics scientific fraud weight loss Thank You To These & Other Archives For Listing My Site AAA World Announce Archive LinkMaster (Excellent!)

bepatient38839.9527083333

Ok I see a lot of links to holistic and homeopathic sites - but damned if I see any up-to-date valid science!

I also see where they claim aspartame breaks down into stable wood alcohol in the body. That's an urban myth and was disproved a while ago. I'll find the valid links when I can.

I have to go to work but will check out and post the breakdown of the safety tests that were recently made public. Take a look here about 5:00 Mountain time.

Just know that this stuff I've seen before and it all links to non-science sites that I've seen. Maybe bring to the top the ones that are medically verified so I can see them? Lots of reading and I only got to about 15 pages here before I must run.

Later!

Agree with Glen, Should be at "Alternatives". On this if you want contribution to it from others.. seriously,, move it to the "Alternatives" I think this whole issue is a con by clever salesmen.. get your product out and get people talking about it and see what reaction is...We all NEED some sweets to keep a balanced sugar level. All things can have a negative effect when you look at it in reality. Xylitol is so suppose to be better for teeth and ears.

My type one diabetic friend was put on a vegetable/ fruits/ protein diet in this order her levels are much better now. It was cause her kidnys were starting to fail. She is just 38. Protein is hard on the kidnys. Told to do this by her Dr.

Splenda is the best and please do not tell me it is toxic too I am diabetic and love my splenda. I do however agree with aspertane yuk since splenda came about.

[QUOTE=oldtimer]We all NEED some sweets to keep a balanced sugar level. All things can have a negative effect when you look at it in reality. Xylitol is so suppose to be better for teeth and ears. [/QUOTE]

Uh - no.

Actually sugar is a carbohydrate - a simple molecule of carbon and hydrogen that is easily broken down for energy in the body. And you make your own when eating veggies and meat.

Sugar is only needed as a quick fix for diabetics so they don't have to be chained to a blood monitor strip and a food table. But the rest of us get it no worries at all sugar-free if we wish.

Now if you take away all complex carbohydrates (wheats like pasta, rice, potato, etc.) then your body goes into severe shock and we get sick and grumpy. But you live.

Honestly oldtimer I've wanted to give you an even break but where do you get your info from? I'm lost how you get it wrong so very often?

LOL!! I have been exploring the depths of garbage out there on aspartame's so-called "toxicity". Wow - every single one links to this single site! No studies except for a partial study done by the FDA in which 49 lab rats out of 10,000 were discovered to have growths (not tumors growths ok?!?) on their brains. That's .49 percent (49/100ths of one percent) of the study animals! They could not directly link it to any ingestion of the aspartame and yet it's the main study being quoted! That and a bogus 3-year italian study of baby monkeys that has poorly setup tests (no double-blind no monitoring) and was paid for by anti-aspartame groups I suppose to get into line for class-action suits in the future. Everyone wants to be rich in the US and abroad I guess.

Oh - yes and there is a conspiracy theory online going around that the US government banned ephedra (a truly nasty and horrible "natural" med) to cover up publicity on so-called secret studies about aspartame. Bah!! Very funny stuff!

I've found thumbs-up approval for aspartame from over 100 world governments including agencies like the AMA, American Diabetes Association, World Health Organization, United Nations Food and Agriculture Association and so many more.

The FDA has self-audited and found that there was no problem with the 1981 conclusion (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-adf9.html) but did find one problem with aspartame - people with sensitivity called phenylketonuria or pregnant women with hyperphenylalanine. In plain english people who cannot metabolize the sugar substitute's main ingredient can get brain damage. But that's a very very small group.

Now - old-fashioned sugar, honey, molasses, fructose, glucose, sucrose et. al? Well we all know they cause in high amounts caries (tooth decay), obesity, diabetes, hyperglycemia, sucrose sensitivity (kids bouncing off the walls after candy), hormonal shifts, excessive bacterial growth - wow what a safe bunch of natural alternatives!!

LOL - sugar or nutrasweet take them or leave them. Just know what you are worried about. In other words NOTHING AT ALL. It's in the category of the chupacabra, loch ness monster and spider eggs in your bubble gum. Myth.

And relax now - have a soda!

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

It lists one of the letters that went around. It's a fear tactic used often (for a lot of people if they see it on the internet it just MUST be true!) and gets a lot of press.

Here's the article from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology - a very respected University)

Study reaffirms safety of aspartame

Deborah Halber, News Office
September 16, 1998

Even daily large doses of the high-intensity sweetener aspartame, also known as NutraSweet, had no adverse effect on study subjects' health and well-being, a visiting scientist at MIT reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last week.

"We conclude that aspartame is safe for the general population," said Paul A. Spiers, visiting scientist in the Clinical Research Center (CRC).

Mood, aggression and selected cognitive functions were tested during a study in which some of the subjects consumed doses of aspartame nearly 20 times the daily amount taken by the vast majority of the general population.

During a four-month period, subjects received either aspartame, sugar or a placebo and underwent physical and psychological testing. Some subjects were given doses of up to 45 milligrams per kilogram of body weight--the equivalent of 17 to 24 12-ounce diet beverages for males and 14 to 19 12-ounce drinks for females. In the general population, most Americans who consume aspartame take in 3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day, the equivalent of one or less 12-ounce diet beverage.

Despite the high consumption of aspartame, the 48 normal subjects showed no changes in mood, memory, behavior, electroencephalograms (which record the electrical signals of the brain) or physiology that could be tied to aspartame, Dr. Spiers found. Although some subjects reported headaches, fatigue, nausea and acne, the same number of incidences were reported by subjects taking placebo and sugar as those taking aspartame.

Dr. Spiers noted that these findings corroborate the results of another recent study with preschool and elementary school children that discovered no effect on their moods, activity levels, behavior or thinking after they consumed high doses of aspartame.

He recommended that if a patient reports any adverse effects from a food product, factors such as the patient's overall diet, nutrition and behavior should be carefully tested in a double-blind challenge. "Only in this way can allegations regarding the safety of any food product be properly evaluated before speculation regarding harmful effects begins," wrote Dr. Spiers and co-authors LuAnn Sabounjian of Interneuron Pharmaceuticals of Lexington; Dr. Allison Reiner of Princeton, NJ; Diane K. Myers and Judith Wurtman of the CRC; and Donald L. Schomer in the neurophysiology department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School.

The study was conducted at MIT's CRC. Electro-encephalograms were done at the Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. This work was supported by a grant from the NutraSweet Co. to the Center for Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable Trust.

A version of this article appeared in MIT Tech Talk on September 16, 1998.

Nutrasweet, Equal, Spoonful, Benevia, NutraTaste and Canderel have another name: aspartame. What exactly is aspartame anyway? I'm gonna tell you.

Aspartame is a product we find in everything, from cola, to frozen foods, canned goods, cookies, dairy products, bakery goods, baby formula, baby aspirin, and much more. Aspartame is a synthetic compound made up of two isolated amino acids, 50% phenylalanine, 40% aspartic acids bonded by 10% methanol (wood alcohol).

1) Phenylalanine is a neurotoxin and uncontrollably excites the neurons in the brain when it is not naturally combined with natural enzymes that control this effect. For example, phenylalanine in bananas is counteracted by other substances and does not have this effect. Phenylalanine in aspartame, is not.

2) Aspartic acid is a also a neuroexcitatory agent.

3) Methanol, when not found in its natural combination with ethyl alcohol, will break down within the body into 2 products: formaldehyde (embalming fluid) and formic acid. (Other breakdown by-products are formed from the body break down of strict, isolated methanol, such as epinephrine, phenylethylamine, phenypyruvate, phenylactic acid, Êdiketopiperazine, aspartylphenylalanine, beta aspartame, tyrosine, L-Dopa, dopamine, and norepinephrine, but I won't discuss these although they affect the brain and body).

a. Formic acid is a cardiovascular/blood toxicant, gastrointestinal/liver toxicant, kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant, respiratory toxicant, skin/sense organ toxicant. It is used in building materials, pesticides, and is corrosive. It is also used in aspartame. ( http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_s ubstance_id=64-18-6)

It's used to make glass mirrors, explosives, artificial silk, and dyes, it is a disinfectant, germicide, and fumigant, preventative for mildew in wheat and rot in oats, a germicide and fungicide for plants, an insecticide, and aspartame.

b. Formaldehyde is a product most well known as embalming fluid. It is also used to make nd in the manufacture of slow-release fertilizers. Formaldehyde is also found in construction materials such as plywood adhesives, and aspartame. It is considered a Class "A" carcinogen.

Here is an interesting quote about formaldehyde:

Ingestion of as little as 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult. Ingestion may cause corrosive injury to the gastrointestinal mucosa, with nausea, vomiting, pain, bleeding, and perforation. Corrosive injuries are usually most pronounced in the pharyngeal mucosa, epiglottis and esophagus. Systemic effects include metabolic acidosis, CNS depression and coma, respiratory distress, and renal failure.(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg111.html)

In 1998, a team of scientists in Spain conducted an experiment on rodents to indirectly measure the levels of formaldehyde adducts in the organs after ingestion of aspartame. They did this by radiolabeling the methanol portion of aspartame. The scientists concluded that formaldehyde bound to protein and DNA accumulated in the brain, liver, kidneys and other tissues after ingestion of either 20 mg/kg or 200 mg/kg of aspartame.

___________________________________________________

Aspartame is owned by the Monsanto company, the #1 manufacturer of chemical poisons in the planet. Be careful tho, if you go around saying that aspartame might not be good for ingestion. Monsanto WILL sue you to intimidate you into shutting up. Don't even risk it unless you're a toughie. It does this with anyone daring to say their products are harmful. It also has a monstrously strong lobby greasing palms in Washington to keep aspartame in products all over the U.S.

Oh, and by the way, in Europe, aspartame is permanently banned in all children's products.

[QUOTE=Sarita]

Nutrasweet, Equal, Spoonful, Benevia, NutraTaste and Canderel have another name: aspartame. What exactly is aspartame anyway? I'm gonna tell you.

[/QUOTE]

And that above folks - is the ONLY original (?) thought. The rest is cut and pasted from the one and only source everyone uses for this nonsense.

Aspartame dose NOT digest into wood alcohol OR formaldehyde. It can under extreme heat break down into byproducts such as these but that's at around boiling temperature (hence why it cannot be used for baked or other cooked goods). No amount of stomach acid makes these byproducts.

Aspartame is NOT a neurotoxin. MSG however is in large doses.

These are bogus claims. They all come from a small number of websites that are carbon-copies of one another (do a google search on aspartame toxicity and you'll see they ALL quote each other and no valid sources).

Thanks for your response.

Unless you work for Monsanto (in which case I could understand your defending a product that has been shown to be harmful, as your job would depend upon its sales), I wonder if your defense of aspartame is simply because you use the product yourself and having to switch is just uncomfy.

Meantime, if you'd like, I can spend a half hour tomorrow posting links to studies done on aspartame here and all over the planet, indicating that, at its very best, it is a highly toxic substance.

And by the way, I only posted two links, neither of which had anything to do with health products. You chose to ignore them.

Sarita38843.9248263889

Hmmm -

Well, I guess you'd probably start linking me to www.holisticmed.com where most other sites link to as a "scientific proof" of aspartame poisoning. It isn't. A lot of supposition and bad science there.

Or - maybe www.sweetpoison.com? A site that is by a book writer (to sell her book) where she attributes everything from fibromyalgia to cancer to Aspartame. She sells links to places like a hair sample clinic (which claims to be able to see all sorts of illness from hair protein most of which can only be seen by organ samples and blood gas chromatography. The site/book author even has the gall to say "If your Doctor cannot cure you chances are you are suffering from Aspartame poisoning". Hmph.

Or - www.rense.com - Where it attributes aspartame to all life's illnesses - even blaming the site's author's prostate cancer on it!

They all want answers - but give no scientific proof. I went down the list and it's all supposition and faulty logic.

By the way I do not work for Monsanto or any company that sells or works with aspartame. And I do use nutrasweet products but it's every now and then. But I do not fear - I've seen the studies and it's perfectly safe to use for all but the few with phenylaniline problems.

Oh - one more thing. The reason I am so against this kind of unfounded attack on a safe consumer product is that this is the kind of trash science used against the ADHD meds I and many others use daily. It hurts everyone when bad science is used to make a point.

It's not turning into formaldehyde. You'd see terrible lines of people with destroyed kidneys if that was the case. Formaldehyde even in small doses cause kidney and eye damage as its' crystalline structure rips through the small blood vessels during filtration. It just isn't so and cannot be - it would show up as fast as thalydomide babies in the '70s. You couldn't cover that up for 20 years.

Here's a news canada release by a canadian doctor - talking about the myths.

NC)-Whether or not you've ever consumed products containing aspartame, you've surely heard all kinds of things about it - many of them contradictory. So who's telling the truth? Dr. Joe Schwarcz, Director of the McGill University Office for Chemistry and Society, devotes an entire chapter to aspartame in his new book That's the Way the Cookie Crumbles. He maintains that aspartame is safe: "Aspartame has probably been studied more than any other food additive. The vast body of research conducted over the past 20 years has shown it to be harmless to health."

Aspartame has given rise to many popular myths. But if you want to get to the bottom of things, you can't rely solely on rumours and hearsay: it's important to separate myth from reality.

Myth: Daily consumption of aspartame-sweetened products is harmful to your health.

Reality: Aspartame has undergone close to 200 studies over the past 20 years and is approved by Health Canada since 1981. Aspartame is used in thousands of products. The Acceptable Daily Intake recommended by Health Canada is approximately 3,000 mg/per person/per day. So, you would have to eat or drink the equivalent of 100 low-cal yogurt cups (113g) sweetened with aspartame, 20 cans of soft drink sweetened with aspartame, or 97 packets of the tabletop sweetener. The average Canadian consumes about 500 mg of aspartame per day, which is well below the acceptable limit.

Myth: Aspartame causes headaches.

Reality: Headaches can be caused by many factors, including stress and lack of sleep, as well as a variety of physiological and psychological disorders. It has not been proven that aspartame is more likely to cause headaches than other products. If you have headaches, it is important to consult your doctor to have a proper diagnosis made.

Myth: Aspartame is harmful to people who are affected by diabetes because it increases blood sugar levels.

Reality: According to the Canadian Diabetes Association, all sweeteners available in Canada go through rigorous testing. Once they have been approved it means that they are suitable for use by all Canadians, including those with diabetes. Since aspartame is a non-caloric sugar substitute that gives food a sweet taste without raising the level of glucose in the blood, people with diabetes can turn to aspartame-sweetened products to increase their variety of foods, while maintaining a diet appropriate for their condition.

Myth: Aspartame is harmful to pregnant women and children.

Reality: Aspartame is deemed safe by Health Canada. It is safe for pregnant women and children. Given that both groups have high energy requirements, however, it is important that their diets contain all the calories required for health, growth and development. People with phenylketonuria are one exception. This is a rare, hereditary disease that prevents the proper metabolism of phenylalanine, a substance found in protein foods such as chicken, milk and vegetables, and also in aspartame.

So before jumping to conclusions, be sure to get the scientific facts straight!

- News Canada

Thanks Sarita for all of those links.

I especially liked the one on Aspartame from Arizona State University.

The following, quoted from that article, gives more credence to what the nutritionist said about the cause of my dad's friend's brain tumor. He lived in Arizona all of his adult life, was active an drank a lot of soda sweetened with Aspartame:

"The consumption of aspartame sweetened soft drinks or other beverages in not limited by either calories or Osmolality, and can equal the daily water loss of an individual (which for active people in a state like Arizona can exceed 5 liters). The resultant daily methanol intake might then rise to unprecedented levels. Methanol is a cumulative toxin (8) and for some clinical manifestations it may be a human-specific toxin."

Well, I didn't see aspartame there. I did see formaldehyde - and I agree I don't want anyone drinking formaldehyde either.

Aspartame doesn't digest into methanol or formaldehyde. Only when heated to boiling and messed with does it break into those compounds.

Why are you bothering with this junk? Do you think that you can force a comparison without scientific proof?

This is faulty reasoning.

AHA!!!, I've narrowed down your blindness. You don't believe that aspartame you're drinking/eating is turning into formaldehyde in your body, do you? That's the problem. No sweat. I'm going to clarify that for you once and for all by tomorrow.

Actually, no, Glen.

In fact, not only would I not link you to any holistic, health food or vitamin links, the fact is neither of the two links I provided in my first post were holistic, health food or vitamin related. Both were scientific links you chose to ignore then and are still ignoring now. In your desire to defend aspartame,you'll continue to ignore those two links, as well as any other scientific links I provide from other scientific sources.

In fact, of the two of us, the only one providing holistic, health food and vitamin links is you, and the only one providing scientific links is me. Go figure! I think yours might be a mere knee-jerk response to hearing that aspartame is poison. You don't want to hear that, no matter, no way, nohow. For what reason? I have no idea. I am always suspicious of people who, in the face of scientific facts, continue to defend the opposing viewpoint to the death. There's always a story behind such behavior. Perhaps you'll provide an explanation, when you decide the time is right for it.

As an aside, the Nutrasweet company does pay organizations to do "studies" of Nutrasweet. (Now that ought to be on Comedy Central!!) In fact, on the Nutrasweet website they state that their product is safe and mention these "studies" they pay scientists in various countries to do. Now why would Monsanto be so kind and loving as to pay scientists to do "studies?" The reason Monsanto pays for "studies" is that their product is so toxic, dangerous, and controversial that there are no studies except those which Monsanto has paid for, that show it is safe. All studies of aspartame done NOT under Monsanto's control, show it is incredibly toxic. Monsanto will sue or destroy anyone who dares to test aspartame except under their auspices, pay, and control, and it has destroyed plenty of scientists in the process. Either you are with Monsanto's opinion, or you are against Monsanto's opinion. Monsanto has such huge profits from aspartame, that they refuse to lose this windfall.

In addition to this, the Nutrasweet company has purchased numerous websites under different names in numerous countries and languages, which state that "over 100 scientific studies have been done which have shown that aspartame is safe for human consumption." Monsanto also organized various groups and organizations to claim that Nutrasweet is safe. It financially supports these organizations. It is these websites, organizations and "studies" paid by Monsanto, which you are probably relying upon. Better you than me.

What about the FDA? Yeah, what ABOUT the FDA? During the Reagan presidency, the FDA was very much against aspartame and was not about to approve it. Dr. Adrian Gross of the FDA told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt aspartame can trigger brain tumors and brain cancers and violated the Delaney Amendment which forbids putting anything in food you know will cause cancer. In the midst of scientific studies showing the harms done by aspartame to human beings, and the FDA refusing to approve it, Monsanto contacted Donald Rumsfeld and asked him to whatever he had to do to get aspartame approved. He did. Aspartame was approved by Donald Rumsfeld calling in "political markers" to override the doubts of the FDA's scientists. No reassessment of the science on aspartame was attempted, as country after country followed the FDA's lead and approved the chemical sweetener. Since then, FDA higher-ups have been replaced by the Bush administration with individuals who were upper management in Monsanto and other industries that need toxic products approved by the FDA without a hassle. The Bush administration wants to make sure that safety to Americans is not an issue that will keep CEOs and stockholders from making plenty of money.

You just go right on and swallow all the aspartame all you want. Better you than me.

And now, here are some scientific sources for you on the toxicity of aspartame or its components and by-products. I'll have about 20 more for you tomorrow. That should keep you busy and will make a scientist out of you:

European Journal of Oncology, Volume 10, No. 2, 2005 (request from libraries online required);

Ramazzini Foundation Cancer Program, 2002, http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/982/1/26;

Chemical Toxicity, Safety and Environmental Analysis Information, http://www.instantref.com/formald.htm;

Arizona State University Study on Aspartame, http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/Arizona/arizona.html

National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&a mp;a mp;a mp;db=PubMed&list_uids=9823728&dopt=Abstract ;

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Chronic Toxicity Summary, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels/pdf/50000.pdf;

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg111.html;

MFL Occupational Health Centre, Inc., http://www.mflohc.mb.ca/fact_sheets_folder/formaldehyde.html;

Sarita38844.5670717593[QUOTE=GlenW]

And here it is!! Read and learn.

Marilynn Marchione The Associated Press

Thursday, April 06, 2006

"It's very reassuring. It's a large study with a lot of power," said Richard Adamson, a senior science consultant to the American Beverage Association.

[/QUOTE]

Glen,

This article you posted also has ties to companies that would profit from the use of aspartame.

Also in the other article that you posted, the one supported by "Nutrasweet"; that study was only conducted for four months. It is well documented that the adverse effects of aspartame are cumulative.

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.

"Pro" aspartame people point to industry sponsored short term tests, ignoring independent tests. They point to "reliable" health sites, organizations, foundations etc. that are sponsored, funded & fed "facts" by companies that profit from aspartame.

Glen,

This is nothing personal against you. We have to keep our eyes open. Money and greed can cause people to go to any lengths. Even as far as deceiving the public in compromising their health with not even a blink of a conscious.

I personally will not risk suffering from an illness and /or shortening my life span in order to contribute to the wealth and greed of anyone.

bepatient38846.4237152778

Hi Auntie! Thanks :) I got home late and was hoping to throw together links showing what happens to ingested aspartame. (That is, that it is converted to formaldehyde and some other unpleasant substances). Give me a few minutes to unwind and I PROMISE I will provide some great links on how this process takes place within the body.

I will at least say this: In the small intestine, aspartame encounters chymotripsin (an enzyme). This causes it to breakdown. One of the products it breaks down into is methanol. Methanol is not toxic in the presence of ethanol. In nature, methanol appears side by side with ethanol, so it isn't toxic (for example, in tomatoes, wine and apples, all of which have methanol present with huge amounts of ethanol to make the methanol innocuous). However, in aspartame, methanol appears alone. Methanol alone in the body, becomes a highly toxic substance because it converts into formic acid and formaldehyde.

I've already provided plenty of links (and I have more!) on the effects of formaldehyde on the body.

When I'm not so tired I'll search for links and studies on HOW aspartame is converted into methanol by itself alone (and how the necessary ethanol that would make methanol innocuous, is absent).

Sarita38845.8079861111

Glen? To prove your point that Nutrasweet is safe, did you just happen to provide us with a study that states the following?:

"The study was conducted at MIT's CRC. Electro-encephalograms were done at the Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. This work was supported by a grant from the NutraSweet Co. to the Center for Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable Trust."

Oi vei Glen.....

Fine - take that one then. I'm not overly concerned - the new study is multi-organization and not from the marketing board of any one company.

You still haven't shown me any scientific proof that breaking down aspartame in stomach acid at 98.6 degrees is going to break down the elements into methanol and eventually formaldehyde. Or how the "proof" of this horrible thing hasn't been obtained during simple kidney biopsy on regular hi-dose users of aspartame (methanol and formaldehyde crystals bunch up in the kidneys - it's where coroners look if they suspect murder by wood alcohol as it's the only way once metabolized).

I haven't seen anywhere about any facts to the chemical decomposition to those two chemicals. They use supposition and non-imperical cyclical logic to make these spurious points yet I cannot see any real basis for this hoax.

[QUOTE=chjones][QUOTE=GlenW]Oh - one more thing. The reason I am so against this kind of unfounded attack on a safe consumer product is that this is the kind of trash science used against the ADHD meds I and many others use daily. It hurts everyone when bad science is used to make a point.[/QUOTE]

but more often than not, the scientology-based attackers of ADD use exactly the opposite tactic. affirming that there is no scientific evidence of ADHD as a disease. that it is just a list of disorders 'made up' etc. etc.

that scientists can prove diseases such as malaria or whatever but there is no scientific proof to assert that ADHD exists outside of a 'pharmalogical/psychiatric profiteering con'. etc. etc. with no real logical, definitive science or concrete factors to support it.

out of interest glen - would you say you are psychologically addicted to Adderall or not? i'm just curious. for such a law-abiding bloke (even considered a 'nark' by your co-workers) i was quite surprised to read that you would continue to find a way to take Adderall even if it were made illegal, in one of your older posts when i was searching on something. do you think that constitutes psychological addiction or not?

i guess it depends what psychological addiction actually means.

not that it matters - unless Adderall does get taken off the market. was just interested in what you thought.

[/QUOTE]

you certainly are on an anti-med track these days. That's fine everyone deals in their own way. Just seems very bitter and in some ways I understand from your previous posts.

I'm not psychologically addicted from what I know of the definition of that. I have gone for long periods without. I have suffered no delitirious side effects. I haven't gone through any antisocial or anxious episodes that generally come with withdrawl of a psychologically addictive substance.

As to taking it if it were made illegal I stand by my statement. The meds are safe and I've seen enough proof to know that it works very well (it's dexedrine not Adderall to be specific btw). It it were removed by an overzealous government to divert attention from failed fights against truly bad drugs I would remain a consumer as long as it works.

The whole "I cannot see a genetic test for ADHD so it must not be real" is pretty much dismissed in whole now. Many diseases are diagnosed by the symptoms as the agent that causes them is either cloaked or too difficult (or dangerous) to probe for. The only way to diagnose rabies is symptoms or an invasive collection of dead brain tissue (killing the animal/human). Yet we can see very clearly it is there and do things to prevent it causing death. Varieties of Herpes virus hide in the spinal fluid where it cannot be seen as antibodies other than in outbreaks.

Soon we shall have a better brain scan technique (better every day) and a genetic marker(s) to prove it to the naysayers. But there are still people who say the earth is flat even though we all know it isn't - and no proof will make them change either.

hey glen - i'm only anti-med for myself. i can see it is very successful for a lot of people.

if i choose not to take meds myself it's for different reasons entirely and has a lot more to do with the fact that i almost want to stay ADDled (as crazy as that sounds). i am very pro-ADDer. i just want to find some ways to overcome the sloth/apathy it induces in me - not necessarily change the way i think.

yeah, i don't know what it means to be psychologically addicted either (it's such a weird term). i think you could be - in that you could never happily accept not being on the meds, but then again that's totally normal (in my view) because the meds make you normal essentially.

re. the i cannot see genetic test for ADHD i am the FIRST to dismiss that. i hate this attitude that if science can't prove it - it doesn't exist. it's bullsh*t. always has been. people KNOW what's going on and always have - with or without science. the very fact that fish was always called 'brain food' long before research into omegas/DHAs/et al is case in point. some greeks considered that the world was a sphere too and i was reading a book written by an abbess in the 11th century who also constantly refers to the world as round (so i am not sure WHY anybody ever fell back into the flat theory).

i just meant to point out that it is a double edged sword --- scientologists et al will write reams using 'SCIENCE' as an argument as to why ADHD doesn't exist. trash science can used against meds but equally an attitude of only real proven science is used to trash the whole ADHD concept!

we all know ADHD exists - we live it. and i was just reading a book by Robert Graves and he definitely describes his own ADD (it's amazing description) and later how having a fever (of all things) used to clear his mind and allow him to think clearly:

"my mind working clearly, as it always does in fever, with its visual imagery, which is cloudy and partial at ordinary times, defined and complete."

i wouldn't recommend necessarily anyone go down the route i am taking. to stay unmedicated and untreated ---

but am i anti-meds? maybe, in fact - in that i somewhat feel that it will homogenise everyone into being a total fascist. i think that is true actually. yeah, you are right. although i support each individual in their choice and desire for a better life i worry that the end result will be detrimental somewhere. yes - that is true. of course, it is probably a totally unjustified worry. but ADDers always have been, i think, a voice of tolerance, creativity, spirituality, non-materialism, free-thinking and a balance against fascism --- or maybe they haven't and that's just what i want to believe???

will the balance disappear if all the children are medicated/moulded into becoming round pegs for round holes. who knows? probably not. but yeah, that worries me - i don't HOW it works.

i am going to do a lot more research i guess. now that i am fascinated by the topic. changing the brain patterns from using the weird/foggy ADD channels into streaming along the more 'normal' channels will that also change ones outlook/attitudes on broader topics. will they automatically become little materialists - competitive, consuming, condemning? i don't know.

all interesting.

and of course - there is a history of sorts. even when europeans first had access to cocaine it was all "this is such a miracle drug" -- it was put in coca-cola for health and sent to troops at the front; writers, creatives, psychiatrists everywhere couldn't stop praising its wonderful properties...

but then what happened? that's what i can't get. why? what? where? when did it all stop? i am pretty sure you could still buy cocaine at Harrods in the early 1920s - i'll have to search on the internet and find when and why it was first made illegal.

(not that Adderall can compare directly to cocaine --- and in its favour, it is prescribed only to those that need it - ADDers - and i think this will be its saving grace along with the fact that the more addictive properties and the high has been removed. perhaps that and normals not being able to have easy access means that it won't be withdrawn ever - i hope so).

but i can't help wondering why adders have faulty serotonin receptors/uptake whatever. why? when the brain can seemingly easily change and adapt the level of uptake and/or receptors when under the influence of a stim (tolerance) that it doesn't choose naturally to up/change the levels in ADDers anyway. but perhaps it is a different problem that the ADderall actually addresses in the brain. who knows?

i think this is slightly where my spiritual beliefs come into play...

anyway - enough boring on!

i have to think it through more myself.

chjones38846.3435532407